Health: Degenerative Brain Diseases
	 — 
	Question

Lord Soley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage brain donation to assist scientific research, including into degenerative brain diseases.

Earl Howe: My Lords, as a nation we are deeply indebted to the many individuals who donate brain tissue. This donation enables vital research leading to new treatments for neurodegenerative diseases. The Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research and research charities are all supporting work to encourage brain donation. The MRC network of brain banks is developing a strategy to encourage new donors and plans to hold a workshop in September this year.

Lord Soley: I am grateful for that Answer. I remind the Minister that when we talked originally of heart donation many people found that quite emotionally difficult, but now it is much more common. There is something very similar with brain donation yet it is profoundly important, not only for general research but particularly for degenerative brain disease. The research bodies are very concerned to get people to donate where they do not have a family history of brain degeneration because they need comparative samples. Can the Minister do all he can to promote this? I donated my brain some time ago and so far it has not been returned marked “not fit for purpose”. [Laughter.] In all seriousness, this is a very important issue. It can bring great improvement to people’s lives and to scientific knowledge generally and I ask the Minister and his department to do all they can to promote it.

Earl Howe: I endorse entirely the noble Lord’s ambition in this area. It is an extremely important area of tissue donation and contributes enormously to our understanding, particularly of neurodegenerative diseases. The network of brain banks I referred to has already begun work on its donation strategy, encouraging new donors to sign up for brain donation. Its plan is to target well characterised individuals, for example those in clinical cohorts, as, once donated, the tissue has lots of associated clinical information from life, which is highly useful to researchers. I know that a lot of the major charities are involved in promoting brain donation.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, partly as a result of such donations but also as a result of major developments in genomic medicine, the individual genes responsible for a substantial
	number of degenerative brain diseases have now been identified; the missing or abnormal gene product has been found and, as a result, new treatments are coming on stream? Does he therefore agree that the rare disease advisory group now established under NHS England should be in a position to recommend, in collaboration with NICE, the prescription under the NHS of these so-called orphan or ultra-orphan drugs which are proving to be so effective in some of these conditions and which are now coming on stream in an increasing number?

Earl Howe: My Lords, we are clear that there needs to be a mechanism to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new drugs, particularly those designed to treat rare and very rare conditions. NICE will indeed be the body charged with doing that. It is devising a process by which it can do so that is quite distinct from its normal technology assessment methodology. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the drugs concerned here are of a different kind and order of cost from those which NICE normally assesses. The noble Lord is quite right that that is the broad process which will be adopted.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, my husband did not have some rare disease but, following two strokes, he became involved with a research project called OPTIMA. He was then monitored. It gave my family—and me particularly—great satisfaction to know that he left his brain for research, which they found extremely useful.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am glad to know that. It provides a telling and important example of how this can be done in a sensitive way, and in a way that best meets the requirements of researchers. If there is a possibility of planning in advance the donation of a brain—or, indeed, any organ—it is much easier for the family and gives the patients themselves much satisfaction.

Lord Naseby: Is my noble friend aware that a great deal of work is being done through the EMEA and, through that organisation, by a number of countries in Europe? As one who has raised the issue of orphan drugs before, can we, on this occasion, make sure that NICE co-operates with these other bodies and we do not start duplicating work across the whole of Europe?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that NICE co-operates with its counterpart bodies not only in Europe but in other parts of the world; its work has an international dimension. As the same time, I say to my noble friend that NICE is seen as a world leader in its field. Many other countries look to NICE for the methodology that it adopts.

Lord Turnberg: I am sure that the noble Earl is aware that Alzheimer’s disease is increasing in frequency as we all age, and is becoming a severe health problem. The Alzheimer’s disease association is certainly anxious for brains to be put into its bank, because it seems that there is the potential for a cure for this disease in a few
	years’ time. I suspect that the noble Earl is aware that the research that is done on these brains will be extremely helpful in that respect.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. Dementia is of course a particular focus for research using brain tissue. Also, there are many other neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s, which could potentially benefit from this kind of research.

Burma
	 — 
	Question

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of ethnic tensions and progress towards democracy in Burma.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, we have seen positive steps to end ethnic conflict and strengthen democracy. We welcome the agreement in Kachin to work to end hostilities and to establish political dialogue. However, concerns remain, including recent attacks against minority religions, especially in Rakhine state, where we support humanitarian work, and have called for accountability for the violence there and for citizenship for the Rohingya.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, having seen for myself quite recently the spread of violence against the Rohingya to other parts of Burma and following last week’s violence in Lashio, in Shan state, and this week’s reports of the escalating exodus of people from the Rakhine state into neighbouring countries, what pressure is being put on the authorities in Burma to prevent such violence, to bring the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice, to ensure the rule of law and to resolve the Rohingya’s demands for full citizenship and constitutional rights, which after all lie at the heart of the problem?

Baroness Warsi: The noble Lord always comes to these matters hugely informed, usually having just travelled back from the place that we are speaking about, and I am grateful for that. I think the noble Lord is aware that the United Kingdom has been one of the most front-footed and vocal critics of the violence within Rakhine state. Concerns have been raised by the Prime Minister to the President and by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Minister; and Huge Swire, the Minister with responsibility for Burma, and I raised these issues specifically with two Ministers, the Minister responsible for ethnic reconciliation in the President’s office and the Minister with specific responsibility for Rakhine state. We discussed, among other issues, the long-term settlement of citizenship. There has been some progress, but I completely share my noble friend’s concerns about the violence that is spreading beyond Rakhine state.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recent human rights report on Burma concluded that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have taken place against the Rohingya? In view of those views, does she agree with the conclusions? A simple yes or no answer will suffice and will tell us all we need to know.

Baroness Warsi: I think the noble Baroness will be aware from her own experience as a Minister at the Foreign Office that it would be inappropriate for me to give a simple yes or no answer to a report that clearly needs to be supported by further independent investigative work. I am, of course, hugely concerned about the concerns raised in that report, and our ambassador has already raised them with the Burmese.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the broader problem in the transition to democracy in Burma is that the legal, security and police forces have not come to terms with the idea that Burma is now a multilingual, multireligious and multiethnic state? In advance of the 2015 elections, what are the British Government doing to assist in bringing about reforms in those areas, particularly if that involves training and practical assistance?

Baroness Warsi: I can inform my noble friend that we are doing specific work on police reform. There have been a number of visits both ways to try to progress that work. We are also working on reconciliation after conflict. Burmese Ministers have visited Northern Ireland, colleagues from Northern Ireland have visited Burma, and officials on both sides have been in touch. We are clearly focused on this area.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Burmese army’s continuing offensives and violations of human rights in Rakhine and Shan states and still in Kachin state, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been displaced and are living in destitution? I have visited many of them and witnessed their suffering. What representations are being made by Her Majesty’s Government to the Burmese Government to allow access by international aid organisations to all people in need in Burma?

Baroness Warsi: Noble Lords may be aware that there will be a full debate on Burma during the dinner hour later today, so this is very much an opener; we will have the full course later on. I will be able to give the noble Baroness a lot of detail later about that issue, and about the work that the human rights and refugee commissioner is doing.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the discussion in the European Union has focused in recent weeks on whether sanctions were lifted too early. I want to be clear that I have not formed a view as to whether that is the case. What have the United Kingdom Government said in EU foreign service circles about that matter, and what course do they plan to take?

Baroness Warsi: The noble Lord will be aware that the sanctions were first suspended, and that every member state had to agree to those sanctions remaining in that suspended state. If a single member state had agreed to those sanctions not remaining, the whole regime would have failed. We felt that we needed to put our energies into getting agreement across member states to make sure that the arms embargo remained in place.

Baroness Nye: After President Obama’s visit to Burma last year, the Burmese Government agreed to allow the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights to open an office. What representations have the British Government made on this matter to try to speed things along?

Baroness Warsi: We continue to make representations on this matter. We, too, felt hopeful when President Thein Sein said that he would allow this office to be opened. He reiterated that commitment when he met President Obama, and we continue to press him to make real that commitment.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, all these concerns about Burma/Myanmar are very welcome and reflect very well on noble Lords and Members of this House who are concerned about these things. However, could we also add the thought that it is something of a miracle that the country of Burma/Myanmar is now moving towards rejoining the comity of nations? In the longer term, if we work positively and closely with the authorities and face their terrific and very difficult concerns, we will bring them to the democratic pattern that we all admire and maybe even to being members of the Commonwealth. Will the Minister recognise this positive side of our work with Burma for the future?

Baroness Warsi: I absolutely recognise the comments made by my noble friend, whether those concerns relate to prisoner release, freedom of the press or political participation. Of course, we must recognise and congratulate the Burmese for moving in the right direction.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Empey and I had the privilege of being invited to speak with representatives of the Government of Myanmar and, subsequently, with the opposition caucus. They wanted to look at lessons to be learnt from Northern Ireland, although the sizes of those countries have very little in common: 1.8 million against 57 million. The one thing missing is a Senator George Mitchell, someone who can be picked, I suggest, from Australia, New Zealand or somewhere in that region and who will act as the honourable broker in resolution. That is something that we as a Government should be committed to.

Baroness Warsi: Clearly, the noble Lord comes to this matter with expertise and experience. We can take heart from the fact that out of the 11 disputes in Burma, 10 ceasefires have been signed and a reconciliation process has started. The challenge is now whether the
	Burmese Government have the political will to see through into real action the commitments that they have made in these reconciliation agreements, but I take the noble Lord’s points.

Health and Social Care
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider linking the separate outcomes frameworks for health and social care.

Earl Howe: My Lords, we will improve outcomes only if all parts of the system work together with a common purpose. The three outcomes frameworks have been and continue to be increasingly aligned, reflecting the joint contribution of health, public health and adult social care to improving outcomes. The frameworks form the basis for integrated working locally. They support local partners across the health and care system to identify shared responsibilities, pursue shared goals and improve outcomes for their communities.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I certainly welcome the efforts that have been made to align more closely the various outcome frameworks, in particular the sharing of particular outcome indicators on premature mortality. Given the new duties that are now on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups to reduce health inequalities, and indeed the current inequalities in the incidence of conditions such as cancer and survival rates among deprived groups, what evidence is there that using these common outcome indicators will result in more integrated services such as smoking cessation, leading to real reductions in health inequalities?

Earl Howe: The essence of the answer to that is that improved outcomes will be achieved only when all parts of the system work together. If you have shared measures within the outcomes frameworks and measures that are complementary to each other, you will shine a light on areas of inequality and inform local and national action to advance equality. This focus on outcomes rather than processes enables an innovative approach to health and care services that is driven essentially by the needs of the local population. I will just add that local Healthwatch has a role to play in working with partners to make sure that the views of vulnerable and seldom heard groups in the population are heard.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, is any work being done on the outcomes of preventive work? I speak, for example, of installing a handrail to prevent a fall that results in an unnecessary and expensive hospital admission. These are often overlooked in terms of outcomes. Will the Minister tell the House if any work is being done on preventive work?

Earl Howe: There are a number of indicators in the NHS Outcomes Framework and, indeed, in the public health outcomes framework and the adult social care outcomes framework relating to the vulnerable elderly groups in our population. I shall need to write to the noble Lady with a specific answer to her question. However, her question is extremely pertinent to the issues that have been very high profile recently, the resolution of which depend, in part, on ensuring that we can avoid unplanned admissions to hospital and keep people securely in their own homes.

Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that when the separate inspectorates are established they will reinforce integrated working rather than operate in separate identities?

Earl Howe: I can indeed, and I can do so with confidence because the three chief inspectors that we propose to create—one of whom, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals, has already been appointed—will be working as part of the Care Quality Commission. They will be senior employees of the CQC and their job will certainly be to align the methodology that they use to assess good and poor care.

Lord Kakkar: My Lords, I declare my interest as professor of surgery and consultant surgery at University College London Hospital. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, there was a discussion about the need to ensure that there was an ongoing focus on integrated care between community hospitals and tertiary services. This needed to be attended by a focus on the development of metrics that would describe whole pathways of care outcomes for patients. What progress has been made with regard to the development of those whole pathway metrics?

Earl Howe: The noble Lord hits upon a point of central importance. The outcomes framework clearly sets out where the different parts of the health and care system share responsibility for outcomes and support joint working in the way that I have described. However, we are committed to developing a measure of people’s experience of integrated care for use in the outcomes frameworks. That is a work in progress. Meanwhile, a place holder was included within both the NHS and adult social care outcomes frameworks when they were refreshed in November last year. We have highlighted the development of this measure in the public health outcomes framework, so I hope to give the noble Lord further news in a few months’ time.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, within local authorities, public health is responsible for reducing local health inequalities, particularly in areas of non-communicable disease. For those, the solutions are often long term, so would my noble friend explain how success can be measured and incentivised in the short term?

Earl Howe: Again, my noble friend asks an extremely good question. The year-on-year success of public health interventions to address non-communicable diseases,
	for example, will be measured through the public health outcomes framework. The department will incentivise some of the indicators in the public health outcomes framework through the health premium incentive scheme. Some of the indicators that will be selected may contribute to prevention of non-communicable diseases.

Baroness Wheeler: My Lords, on social care, the charity Mind has pointed out that many people with mental health problems are never properly assessed to see if they need social services, such as having somebody to help with admin or household tasks, or with washing, dressing or something meaningful to do during the day. Is the Minister confident that the outcomes framework is robust enough to measure this problem, and how does he think that local councils will be able to address this issue in the light of the £2.7 billion cuts that they will have had to their adult social care budgets by the end of this spending round?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the adult social care outcomes framework was put together with a great deal of help and support from local authorities, so we hope that there will be a great deal of buy-in to it. It has as its focus high-quality care and promoting people’s independence and well-being, and it enables councils to make comparisons, assess scope for improvement and measure progress against their own local priorities in adult social care. Therefore, the virtue of the outcomes frameworks is, above all, transparency and accountability, leading to improved quality of care as defined locally by councils.

Railways: Crossrail
	 — 
	Question

The Earl of Courtown: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made to date on their plans for Crossrail.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Crossrail project is progressing well. The six tunnel-boring machines active under London have completed around 12 kilometres of tunnels. Several milestones have already been reached, including the tunnel breakthrough at Canary Wharf attended by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London last Friday. While maintaining focus on the delivery of infrastructure, work is now well under way on the operational phases of the project: in other words, making Crossrail a fully operational railway.

The Earl of Courtown: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Will my noble friend join me in congratulating the many small and medium-sized enterprises that have been part of this very important infrastructure project? It would also be very useful if he would tell the House whether any decision has been made on who the future operator of Crossrail will be.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend for the SMEs and other businesses supporting the Crossrail project. A lot of them are involved, and, in addition, many of them are based far outside London and the south-east. Transport for London will be responsible for Crossrail services. It is procuring a private sector Crossrail train operator concession, using a model similar to London Overground. Operations will start in May 2015.
	The current opening strategy is split into five phases, beginning with Liverpool Street to Shenfield in May 2015. In December 2018, services will start through the main Crossrail tunnel between Paddington and Abbey Wood. Full services will open in December 2019.

Lord Berkeley: Will the Minister explain whether there are still plans to have two different signalling systems on this tunnel, one in the tunnel and one on Network Rail on either side? What assurances can he give that the trains will not have to stop at the changeover point? That would not be very good when a two-minute headway frequency is planned for the trains. Is the matter resolved yet?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is not resolved yet. The noble Lord is quite right that there are two signalling systems. One is needed in the central portion in order to meet the productivity requirements. Engineers are working through the issues of transitioning from one system to another, but the trains will not need to stop in order to transition the system.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the Minister referred to the six tunnel-boring machines. Is he aware not only that all six machines were imported but that the reason they were imported is not that in a competitive tender they were more competitive than British tunnel-boring machines but that there is no such thing as a British tunnel-boring machine? Would it not be useful to ask the Department for Business to do a study of why, in this potentially hugely growing market worldwide, we have no capacity in this country?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the tunnel-boring machines were not made in the UK. Each one costs about £10 million, which is a relatively small proportion of the overall project. UK businesses have benefited from the award of 97% of the contracts in the Crossrail supply chain, with 58% of contracts awarded to SMEs and 43% awarded beyond London and the south-east.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, has the noble Earl’s department given any thought to whether Crossrail ought to be renamed, perhaps in honour of Her Majesty the Queen after 60 years of loyal service on the Throne?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is an issue for the Mayor, but it is a very interesting idea and something that we will consider. There are a number of examples of railway infrastructure being named after the monarch or royal events, such as the Victoria line, Victoria station and the Jubilee line.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, Crossrail 1 is very expensive and there is a now a possibility of Crossrail 2 which will be much more so. Have the Government given any thought to ways in which contributions from businesses which benefit from these schemes can be efficiently tapped into the scheme? For example, while at Ealing huge rises in property prices have benefited several private sector investors, the taxpayer gets nothing.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that we will need to see a full business case for the revised scheme, and we hope to receive this from Transport for London in the next few weeks. We also need to see a convincing proposition for how the scheme could be funded and DfT officials are exploring options with TfL. I agree with the noble Lord about property benefits but it is difficult to capture them.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will appreciate the progress which has been made on Crossrail and the Minister will know this has been met through a publicly funded system. Why on earth did the Government not follow this process on Thameslink? The severely critical report published today by the National Audit Office states that reliance on a complex mix of public and private finance means that the trains for this project may not be delivered on time.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the NAO report, due to be published today, has been agreed by the department. The report is broadly positive. We welcome the scrutiny of the NAO and are pleased that it has recognised the good progress we have made in delivering the first stage of the infrastructure part of the programme on time and under budget.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are the Government now considering extending Crossrail to Reading? Would it not be sensible to do so, as Reading is the second largest rail junction in the country and is being redesigned and reworked on a very expensive basis? It could well accommodate much better use of the Crossrail project.

Earl Attlee: It would be possible for Crossrail services to be extended to Reading in the future and the new Reading station has been designed to keep that option open. The route from Maidenhead to Reading remains safeguarded. Some of the works at Maidenhead are necessary for sidings in any case.

Energy Bill
	 — 
	First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of Entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
	That the draft order laid before the House on 22 April be approved.
	Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 3 June.
	Motion agreed.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Committee (1st Day)

Moved by Lord McNally
	That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
	Amendment to the Motion
	 Moved by Lord Ramsbotham
	Leave from “House” to the end and insert “declines to consider the Bill in Committee until Her Majesty’s Government have produced a revised impact assessment on the Bill which includes the supporting evidence for the cost estimate given of around £25 million per year associated with breach of licence and supervision conditions for short sentenced offenders and an explanation for the decision to regard key assumptions, sensitivities and risks as not applicable.”

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords might leave the Chamber quietly and whether those passing in front of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which is something we do not normally do, might do so even more inconspicuously. I have given the noble Lord the opportunity to hesitate for a moment as he has some important matters to set out in explaining the purpose of tabling the Motion and what he seeks from the Minister in response.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Chief Whip for that intervention.
	I suspect that I am not alone in being in something of a quandary about the Bill. I entirely support the main intent behind it, which is to reduce the appalling reconviction rate that is an indictment of our offender
	management system, particularly as regards those awarded short prison sentences who have the highest reconviction rate and are responsible for so many crimes on release. For many years, I have campaigned for many of the measures that it contains, so why should I be calling on the Government to slow down their headlong rush towards a goal that I share? I do so for two reasons, both based on personal experience. I spent 41 years in the Army before I became Chief Inspector of Prisons, a number of them in Whitehall. My memories of those days were revived today when I read the obituary in the
	Times
	of Sir Patrick Nairne, who was a most distinguished civil servant as well as a hugely cultured and civilised man. From him, and others like him, I learnt that when a paper or proposal was intended to be moved towards the Secretary of State, it should be put first to the Army board, but only after it has been properly researched and costed, which research included careful examination of all the consequences, intended or otherwise, that could be identified. Only after such proposals had gone through the Army board, the Chiefs of Staff and then Ministers, would they reach the Secretary of State, and certainly not the outside world.
	When I heard about this Bill in the gracious Speech on 8 May, I little thought that it would be published the next day at the same time as the long-awaited response to the consultation document, Transforming Rehabilitation, to which it relates. However, what was even more worrying was that, having been subjected in recent years to a very low standard of impact assessments accompanying Bills, this one was also dated 9 May, which suggested to me that far from being a document which had informed Ministers and officials throughout their deliberations on the Bill, it had been added as an afterthought. Far too many of the impact assessments that I have seen recently seem to have only two options—take it or leave it; or, I, the Secretary of State, have decided that this is what I am going to do. That is one option and the other is to do nothing, which is not acceptable. When you are launching untried theories that affect the lives of literally millions of people, I suggest that this is bad government.
	My second experience has been over the past 18 years, when I have been associated with the offender management system itself. When you get down to the guts of offender management, you find that it is all about enabling someone or some people to influence someone else to live a useful and law-abiding, as opposed to a useless and law-breaking, life—nothing more and nothing less. I have observed with considerable dismay the relentless advance of political and bureaucratic interference, and the time and ability of those concerned to do that, with the inevitable result that the reconviction rate has increased. The old Prison Commission, before it was abolished in 1962, was run from a house in Eccleston Square, with a staff of 128 people without computers. Now, admittedly with double the number of prisoners, the computer-assisted National Offender Management Service has a cast of more than 2,000.
	Throughout the time that I have watched the system at work, I have been deeply humbled and impressed by the incredible dedication and drive of countless thousands of people working in and for the Prison Service and probation service, who have come up with successful
	innovation after successful innovation only to see them killed rather than exploited by the bureaucratic system. If only the management system had the wit to monitor what was best and bring it into common practice, I believe that it could introduce cost-effective treatment of offenders in every possible condition.
	That has been the system until now but I am concerned about what is included in the Bill, particularly in the White Paper. It is unfortunate that we are discussing the Bill before the White Paper because the latter contains all sorts of ideas and proposals, none of which has been tried or costed, on which the Bill is based. Until now, no one has pretended that the market provides a better solution for enabling people to live useful and law-abiding lives than other people, and there is no evidence that it does so. The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to take time and give us time to think all this through. There has, so far, been no pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It has all been rushed through at breakneck speed, we have heard no reason why the Government seem determined to rush it all through, and we have had no explanation or answer to all the questions that were asked at Second Reading. We are, therefore, coming into Committee ill informed.
	I remind the House of some of the questions that I asked at Second Reading but which remain unanswered. They are fundamental to the protection of the public, which is what rehabilitation is all about. What factors were taken into account in estimating that there would be a cost of only £27 million a year associated with the breach of licence and supervision conditions for short-sentence prisoners, which is part of the amendment I have tabled today? How many offenders were assessed as likely to breach? Were any facts, and therefore costs, deliberately excluded from the assessment? What factors did the Government consider in estimating that there might be additional police costs of only £5 million a year? What is the Government’s estimate of the cost of providing a rehabilitative service to offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, and how much of that are they looking to recover through competition? What about the cost of extending rehabilitative services anyway? There is no mention of any assessment of the ability of the private sector—which failed so spectacularly to provide security staff for the Olympic Games—to provide trained and accredited staff who can be relied upon to provide the regular contact needed with offenders whose chaotic and dysfunctional lifestyles are described in the White Paper.
	What about the cost of the proposed reorganisation of the probation service? What about the assessment of the cost of training and accrediting non-public sector responsible officers? What about the analysis of the timeframe or content of the results for which providers will be paid? What about the estimate of new IT costs? What about how reoffending will be measured? What about how many additional short sentences are likely to be awarded or the impact of the new provision on either prisoners or the supervision of those awarded community sentences? Finally, how do the Government think that the introduction of the
	market will improve existing arrangements where the probation service is involved in several essential local partnerships to do with the rehabilitation of offenders?
	That is a considerable catalogue of uncertainty. I am concerned that if the public look at all this objectively they will, quite rightly, wonder how it was that the House of Lords, which is responsible for scrutinising Bills, allowed something to go through when it had so little information on which to base its judgment. That is in danger of dragging not just this House but the whole parliamentary system into disrepute. I question the need to proceed at such an absolutely headlong pace. I was told last night that one of the reasons for pushing ahead with the Bill is to encourage funding by illustrating what needs to be funded. I was also told that, instead of payment by results referring to individuals it will, in future, refer to what are called cohorts of individuals. A cohort of offenders will mean the group of people for whom a particular provider is responsible. The result will be a reduction in the reoffending rate in that group from a figure yet to be determined, and a reduction in the number of crimes that they are alleged not to have committed. When I questioned the Secretary of State about the word “reoffending”, he admitted that he actually meant “reconviction” because that is the only thing that you can measure.
	We are therefore going into something totally imprecise. We do not know over what period this judgment will be made. Nor do we know how provision will be made for the achievement of the natural list of providers, in both the private and voluntary sectors, all around the country, that can provide consistent management, which is what these people above all provide.
	I realise that it is very unusual to propose an amendment suggesting that the Bill be withdrawn at this stage. I do not want to press any further with this, other than to ask the Minister to agree to provide answers to all these questions and an explanation of why it is necessary for the House to press ahead in such an ill informed way before we proceed. We owe it to the millions of members of the public, whom it is the duty of the Government to protect, to ensure that any Bill affecting their protection is subjected to the best possible scrutiny before it is released from this place. Therefore, if we are not to be enabled to do this, the House has a right to know why, because it will be called to account by the public. I beg to move.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I strongly sympathise with the noble Lord’s observations and share his strictures on the substance of the proposals that we are to debate. I must, however, thank the Minister for arranging a meeting yesterday, and I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State in the House of Commons for attending that meeting. However, in the nature of things, it lasted only an hour and we were able to get through only three clauses of the Bill. That underlines the difficulties that your Lordships will face in debating adequately the complex proposals before us.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the inadequacies of the impact analysis, which, I have to say, was exceptionally flimsy, even by the standards of this Government. A huge area of public policy, the future of the probation service, on which much of the Bill depends, is not actually included in the Bill.
	Amendments in my name and in the names of other noble Lords will raise that issue, but it is not in the Bill at all.
	It is only two weeks since Second Reading and your Lordships’ House has been in session for only six days since then. Given the recess, it has been difficult enough for Members of the House to consider and draft amendments without the benefit of the kind of information to which the noble Lord referred. He has itemised many of the relevant questions. I, too, raised questions, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I do not expect the Minister to occupy his Whitsun Recess by replying personally to all these matters but the department should surely have taken steps to respond to those questions and allow the debates that will take place today and next week to be better informed. It is unfortunate that that has not been the case and I hope that the Minister will feel able to assure the noble Lord that answers will be given. It is not good enough for them merely to arise in the context of today’s Committee debate. We ought to have the answers laid in the Library in a consolidated form and available for consideration before we reach Report in some three weeks’ time. I hope that the Minister can build on the good work he did yesterday, rather than the omissions of the department, in dealing with these requests.

Lord McNally: My Lords, a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said was very familiar, because of course it was also his Second Reading speech. I make no complaint, but I say to the Opposition that they may be on this side of the Box one day. If using this kind of amendment to prevent a Committee stage proceeding were to become too much of a habit, it would be very easy to gum up government business.
	I associate myself with the noble Lord’s words about Sir Patrick Nairne, because I was also a Whitehall warrior for quite a long time. I worked with Sir Patrick in the 1970s. My experience of both Whitehall and Westminster makes me less than apologetic about our approach. Governments are always faced with attacks for having no policy and being too slow, or for having too many ideas and rushing Parliament. I would rather we had too many ideas.
	The truth is that successive Governments have tried to tackle the challenge of rehabilitating offenders. We have put forward our proposals for scrutiny and I am old fashioned enough to believe that that is exactly what the Committee stage of a Bill is for. I look forward to the next eight hours or so today and to the next Committee day for the House to do its proper job of scrutiny and questioning, and I will do my best to give answers.
	On the specifics of the impact assessment, I agree to take another look at it and see where we can update it for the benefit of the House. I will bring that impact assessment back before the Bill completes its stages in this House. I hope that will be in time for Report. However, as noble Lords on the other Benches who went through similar exercises will know, we have to hold back certain things for commercial reasons. We are about to enter negotiations to get the best deal for
	the taxpayer and therefore do not wish to reveal our entire hand in advance. I will update the impact assessment as much as I can but I suggest that we now get on with the work of the day and the work of this House, which is the detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for what they have said. I am particularly grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that he will look at the impact assessment. That is hugely important not only for us but for the officials and members of the services who will carry out the work. Can the Minister say anything about the unanswered questions which I and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned?

Lord McNally: My Lords, that is what a Committee stage is for. I will try to answer as many of those questions as I can, but after the noble Lord’s experiences in the military, in Whitehall, in Parliament and in the various services, he will know that not all the questions he poses have an instant answer available. I have never hidden the fact that we are being innovative in what we are doing, and because of that, there is no track record to refer to. However, that does not resile from the fact that these are worthwhile proposals to be considered, and I am very willing, during the course of the examination of the Bill, to try to be as full in my answers as I can.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that because it was precisely what I was hoping he would say. As I said, my quandary about the Bill is that while one approves entirely of its intent, one is concerned about the lack of detail. If we can elicit that detail during the Committee stage, we will be able to achieve our purpose. I personally am very keen to get on with the debate as quickly as possible. I apologise for taking some time but it was important to raise the issues of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and the speed. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment withdrawn.
	Motion agreed.
	Clause 1 : Reduction of cases in which prisoners released unconditionally
	Amendment 1
	 Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
	1: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “1 day” and insert “less than 29 days”

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall also address Amendments 3, 5 and, in passing, Amendment 3A. Amendments 1 and 3 are designed to give greater flexibility to a sentencing court. As the Bill stands, everyone sentenced to a period of custody of one year or less will be given a period of 12 months’ supervision from their day of release. This, of course, is something that we welcome as a useful addition to the armoury of the probation
	service. However, there will be cases where this period of supervision is excessive, disproportionate and unnecessary. A court imposing a short custodial sentence of, say, 29 days or fewer will be well aware of the alternatives available—namely, a community order, which could itself have been more punitive and more rehabilitative. If, nevertheless, the court decides on a short custodial sentence, I would argue that it can be safely assumed that no rehabilitative action was required and therefore it should not be unnecessarily imposed on the offender.
	Amendment 5 addresses the same point and is also designed to reduce the burden on the probation service. It provides that a court can direct, on advice from the probation service, that there need be no period of supervision. I should say that this would be in exceptional cases. The sort of cases that I am thinking about relate to the one-off nature of an offence where the offender is of previous good character, there were physical or mental health issues, or the offender is extremely old. Another factor might be the length of time that has elapsed between the date of the offence and the date of conviction where there had been no offending during the interim period.
	The purpose of the amendments is to give the courts greater flexibility and prevent disproportionate and unnecessary supervision. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in the previous debate, yesterday we were fortunate enough to meet the Justice Secretary. The argument he advanced in response to these amendments was that there needs to be a stable cohort of offenders who are to be managed by the private probation providers. He went on to say that the new group of offenders who are to receive this new supervision need to be a stable group so that a proper assessment of reoffending among this group can be done on a year-on-year basis. The purpose is to make an accurate calculation of the payment by results of the private contractors and, most importantly, to assess the success or otherwise of the additional supervision to be provided.
	I completely understand that argument. In my professional life I have done many similar calculations myself and I know it is very useful to have a stable cohort when making those calculations. But I would argue through these amendments that that simplicity and clarity of calculation should not be set above the interests of justice of the offenders themselves and, however low the level of supervision which will be imposed on these people, there will still be an additional cost. In the interests of justice for the offenders and a reduction in costs, I move these amendments.
	I turn briefly to Amendment 3A in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham. A number of amendments address the transition of offenders from under 18 to over 18. The object of all these amendments is to try to maximise the input of the YOT service and to work flexibly with the probation service. This issue may be addressed in Clause 6 (4), which will introduce new Section 106B (4) (b), and may well cover the points raised in this amendment. Nevertheless, I hope the noble Lord will address this point about maximising
	flexibility for the YOT service and enhancing its ability to work constructively with the private probation providers. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for the way in which he moved that amendment. During Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, told us about his experiences as a sitting magistrate and the frustration that magistrates often feel when they see offenders with long histories of offending coming before the court time and again. The noble Lord told us how magistrates genuinely feel that they use custody as a last resort. In all the discussions that I have had with anybody who has had an experience of the magistracy, that emphasis has been made. The Government share the frustration of the magistracy. They seem to be almost forced into successive custodial terms because of the cycle of repeat offending. That is exactly why we have brought forward the Bill. It is why Clause 1 extends release on licence and why Clause 2 tops up that licence with additional supervision.
	The Government believe that the only way we can break the high level of reoffending among this group of offenders is to end the current position whereby they walk out of prison after half of their sentence with no support and no incentives to seek support to change. That is why Clause 1 applies licensing conditions to all custodial sentences of more than one day. I will explain why in Clause 1 licences apply to a sentence of more than one day, before I turn to the Amendment 1 of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. First, there is a practical consideration. The headline sentence imposed by the court is, as the House knows, halved. It is not possible, nor practical, to half a half day of custody. It is also the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be aware, that there are some minor cases in which the court decides that an offender could serve their sentence by spending a day sitting in the court. So, for practical purposes and to retain the power of the court to sentence to a day in court, we applied the licence and the new top-ups of this supervision to sentences of more than one day.
	Amendment 1 would raise that minimum period to sentences of 29 days or more. In other words, a sentence of 28 days or less would result in unconditional release with no licence conditions, no top-up supervision, no power to recall the offender and no way to rehabilitate the offender other than the hope that they volunteer for support. A significant number of offenders who the noble Lord and his fellow magistrates sentence to custody receive a sentence of 28 days or less. The latest statistics from 2012 suggest that around 13,300 adult offenders received such a sentence. The reason why many of those offenders receive sentences of 28 days or less is because their history of offending makes the offence more serious, therefore justifying a custodial sentence. It is exactly because these offenders have failed to break their cycle of offending that they received the short custodial sentence in the first place, and it is because they have been released from short sentences with no support that they continue to offend and receive yet more short prison sentences. This is exactly the group that we should be targeting for supervision. It is a group of offenders for whom we
	should do everything possible to help them face up to the issues that have caused them to offend. Some of them will reoffend when under supervision and some will not comply with the licensed conditions, but that has to be better than the current position, where they are simply imprisoned and released, only to reoffend and be imprisoned again.
	I understand why the noble Lord tabled this amendment but, given that it will not provide the courts with more discretion and will leave a significant number of offenders without support, I hope that he would consider withdrawing it. As the Secretary of State explained at our meeting last night, the intention is to have flexibility and common sense in terms of the treatment that is applied during that period of supervision. By the way, that was not a secret meeting—all noble Lords were invited and I was very grateful to those who did come along to hear him. At the very beginning of this debate, I would also make the point that we must not think of the period of supervision as punishment; it is a period of help and support, which we hope will help people to avoid reoffending.
	I now turn to Amendments 3 and 5, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. These relate to the top-up supervision covered by Clause 2, which will introduce a new Section 256AA, applying supervision to all offenders with a sentence of,
	“more than 1 day but less than 2 years”.
	That means that the period of licence will be topped up with additional supervision so that the two, taken together, amount to 12 months. Amendment 3 essentially follows from Amendment 1. If Amendment 1 was adopted, those serving 28 days or fewer would have no licence, and Amendment 3 would mean they would have no top-up supervision either. I have already said why the Government disagree with Amendment 1, and it follows that we would not support Amendment 3 for the same reason. It is a small point, and I do not want to labour it, but I assume that the noble Lord, in Amendment 3, meant to refer to more than 28 rather than 27 days, since his Amendment 1 related to sentences of less than 29 days—that is, 28 days or fewer. In other words, a sentence of 28 days would fall between the two.
	Amendment 3A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seeks to amend the categories of offenders who receive top-up supervision under Clause 2. Amendment 3A would exempt offenders sentenced in the youth court when they were under 18 from receiving top-up supervision, even if they were 18 when released from custody. I note that the amendment does not seek to extend this exemption to those sentenced when under 18 in the Crown Court. I understand the concerns, which my noble friend Lady Linklater has also raised, and we will return in later amendments to the question of supervision for those released from custody who have reached 18. However, I would say now that the Government believe that our commitment to provide 12-month supervision should apply to all those aged 18 and over, when they reach the point when they would be released from custody. We, of course, recognise that young offenders who have just turned 18 can have different needs from older, adult offenders, and we will
	expect providers also to recognise this difference and to tailor their supervision to the particular needs of this group.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment 5, the last amendment in this group. The effect of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, explained, is to give the court the discretion to order that top-up supervision might not apply. I understand the noble Lord’s thinking here and why he has tabled the amendment. It is true that there will be offenders who will not need significant programmes to address their offending behaviour because they are unlikely to reoffend. The reoffending rates suggest, however, that a significant number of people are likely to reoffend and it is often difficult to anticipate who those offenders are. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, the sentencing court is not always the best position from which to determine what, if any, supervision an offender is likely to need. Offenders who need intensive supervision or specific programmes do not need to receive these services. I return to the point I made earlier that this is not a tunnel-vision approach and a clanking of a machine. We are making sure that 12 months of supervision is available but we are assuming a good degree of common sense about the intensity of that supervision, even as the 12 months progresses.
	We believe that by bringing all offenders within the compass of the Bill but by giving providers a good deal of flexibility in application we will avoid some of the problems that these amendments imply. The provision in this Bill determines only the overall period in which supervision will be available. It does not specify what that supervision should involve or how intensive it should be. That will be for the providers to decide, working within the framework set by this Bill. That is where we give providers the room to innovate, to see what works and, crucially, to pay for what does work. Applying top-up supervision to all offenders and then setting the appropriate level of supervision is a much more practical approach than deciding at the time of the sentence not to supervise an offender only to realise too late that they do pose a risk of offending and would benefit from supervision. I hope in the light of these explanations that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I thank the noble Lord for those answers. He said in addressing Amendments 1, 3 and 5 that the supervision period is not a punishment; it is a support for the offender to help them get back and stay on the straight and narrow. That is true but it is nevertheless a court order and there will still be the scope of breaching the supervision period, which is a very important factor.
	Amendment 5, in particular, sought to exempt certain individuals, and that decision would be the decision of the court but with the advice of the probation service. Surely the probation service, which is very well experienced in these matters, together with a bench of magistrates or justices or district judges would be in a position to see the exceptional case where it was not necessary to have a period of supervision.
	Nevertheless, I will reflect on what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 1 withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed.
	Amendment 2
	 Moved by Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
	2: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
	“Provision of services for voluntary rehabilitation of prisoners
	The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the provision of services for the voluntary rehabilitation of prisoners serving sentences which are for terms of less than 12 months.”

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My amendment is for a proposed new clause to the Bill. The Minister will be aware of the generally very warm welcome expressed for the Government’s move to include rehabilitative support for offenders in the community who have served short sentences. This group of prisoners has hitherto had no supervision. These sentences may range from a few days to less than 12 months, for which no support has been available. Support is desirable and very necessary, as this group of ex-offenders has, as the Minister said, the highest reoffending rates: rates that are greater than for almost any other group in the prison system.
	The issue is how the support is best to be delivered. What is practical, desirable and most likely to succeed with this particular group of offenders is what matters. The typical profile of such people is that they have chaotic lives, often have drug, alcohol or mental health issues, have poor or virtually no education after the age of 14 and were probably jobless before coming into prison. Everything else being equal, they would probably have been better served with a community sentence, although I accept that is for another debate. They will not be a danger to society and are in need of basic support to help change their lives around. Their prison experience will have done nothing to prepare them for a law-abiding life because it is not required to do so. Typically, these people will sleep their way through their sentence.
	It is important that what is offered to them on release is relevant, proportionate and, above all, flexible if it is to succeed. It requires skill on the part of the mentor or deliverer of probation services, and flexibility is the key. If it is tailored to the individual needs of the ex-prisoner, it will have a chance of success. However, if there is an additional statutory fixed period of one year’s supervision as well as the licence period, it will be perceived as disproportionate and unfair, and the risk of breach and recall to custody becomes very real. It would be a terrible irony if a provision that is intended to turn people’s lives around were to produce a rise in the prison population, which is something we want to avoid and completely negates the power and potential that the supervisory period offers. An extreme example to prove—in the sense of “to demonstrate”—this rule could be that someone given a few days in custody for, say, a road traffic offence could then find himself
	with an additional statutory 12 months’ supervision in the community, which is way out of kilter with the nature of the offence. If he defaults and is recalled to prison for 14 days, that would be much longer than the original sentence.
	Instead, the Government should follow the example of successful mentoring schemes that already exist around the country, such as the pilot in Peterborough that I have visited, where the scheme is voluntary and service providers can exercise their own discretion in the management of the offender. Custody is a very last resort. These mentoring schemes are delivering very promising results, and I hope that the Government will look closely at what they are doing because I believe they show the way forward, which is an improvement on the rigid year’s supervision currently proposed. Rigid rules of one year’s supervision might have a simple appeal, but what matters is what works, given the nature of the offences and the needs of the offenders, and here we have an example of what works. This means that we do not have to try to reinvent the wheel.
	Desistence—a favourite word of criminologists, which just means stopping reoffending, which is the subject of a great deal of research, debate and everything else—will occur only if the individual wants to stop offending, and the risk of breach is always high with this group. Already, 6% are in prison for breach following the lengthening of licence periods. A voluntary relationship based on trust is what will succeed with this very low-level group rather than long, fixed periods of supervision, however well intentioned.
	My second, probing, amendment relates to juvenile and young adult offenders and their post-release supervision. The Minister will be aware that there is real concern among the key agencies that work with this group of offenders, notably the Youth Justice Board, that those who are under 18 when they start a sentence set by the youth court should continue to be managed under the auspices of the YJB until they have completed their sentence. This means that the YOTs—youth offending teams—continue with the management of the young offenders rather than transferring them to different, adult supervision by the new probation providers.
	Adolescence and the transition to adulthood is well known for being testing both for young people and those responsible for their management. We have all been through it, and I for one am grateful that I will never have to go through being a teenager again. Life can be particularly difficult for young people who are in trouble with the law, and it is not rocket science to understand that it requires people with particular skills and experience to deal with those issues. The YJB is the pre-eminent body to oversee their arrangements. Many noble Lords will remember the battle that we had to explain the YJB’s role exactly and to protect it from going on to the bonfire of the quangos, precisely because its work is so valuable and of such a high quality.
	While the YJB is the pre-eminent body to oversee the arrangements, the youth offending teams are the professionals on the ground to manage them. I therefore seek assurance from the Minister that the YOTs will
	be able to continue working with these young offenders until they are 21 if necessary, thereby not breaking off the crucial work that is being done with them. Account has to be taken of different levels of maturity, and it is a well-established principle in our justice system that people sentenced for offences committed as juveniles should not be subject to the same expectations and demands as adult offenders. The evidence of the excellent work of the T2A—transition to adulthood—programmes has shown that a young adult’s developmental maturity is at least as important as chronological age and that variations might be directly related to offending and the ability to comply with statutory requirements such as community sentences or licence conditions. This is supported by work commissioned by the Barrow Cadbury Trust at Birmingham University.
	Impressively, the Sentencing Council and the CPS have produced some guidelines on the relevance of maturity in sentencing young people, and this has recently been extended to adults. The best practice in the area has been developed by the CPS, the Sentencing Council, HM Inspectorate of Probation, the probation service, the Riots Communities and Victims Panel and the YJB. This is surely a very powerful background to the approach of working with young people in this position. It is important, therefore, that the Government clarify that the probation service’s responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act will indeed continue for the management of this group, who can rightly be regarded as high risk.
	I am pressing these questions because there is concern that children who turn 18 while in custody may still be treated as adults in terms of the length and type of support on release. Hence my secondary amendments, which I hope I can include at this moment because they are relevant, to delete Clauses 4 and 6, which come a little later on in the list. I would welcome clarity on this from the Minister. It is not clear whether this group will indeed still be regarded as young people for the purposes of their management. If not, how will it work? Will any discretion exist as to who will continue the supervision? If so, who will make that decision? This is very important, as it is well known that the levels of support and supervision drop dramatically in the adult system, so transitional arrangements and communication between agencies will always be critical.
	Ultimately, we all want the best appropriate management of this challenging group. I am sure that all of us share in this wholeheartedly. This means that if they are able to desist, which means taking personal responsibility, their offending will drop. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: I support Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, with the suggestion that “18” should be substituted by “21” in order to bring in this vital group. I thoroughly agree with her about the work being done by the Transition to Adulthood Alliance. Further than that, the probation service was the first to admit that it has not been very good at dealing with the 18-to-21 age group in the recent past, with the exception of three very good programmes: the intensive alternative custody programmes
	in Manchester, South Yorkshire and London, which have been mentioned before in this House. I am not sure that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, which was very happy to take on the responsibility for 18-to-21s in custody is quite so happy having them under the youth offending teams, which are very much geared to the under-18s. On the other hand, I know that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is more than happy to work closely with the probation service in developing these adult services. I therefore hope that, in considering the rehabilitation of this vulnerable and impressionable group, the Minister will agree that the probation service experience in Manchester should be exploited and spread further. I know that it is poised to make an advance on where it had already reached.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, may I add one thing what my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has said, as well as supporting both the amendments? Very many of the young people who will be in custody or will have gone through this process will also have been in care with the local authorities. It is therefore even more important that special attention is being given to them above the age of 18. I particularly support that aspect of the proposals.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in supporting the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. She has a strong point in Amendment 2 on the need to avoid rigidity in the system, to look at particular individuals’ needs and to ensure that supervision is proportionate and flexible according to the circumstances of the case. There is some danger, under the Bill’s present formulation, that that will be rather more difficult than it should be.
	I am also particularly enthusiastic about Amendment 4. It seems that continuity is critical here, particularly as the people we are looking at are themselves in a state of transition. It does not seem helpful that those who supervise and assist such people should change in the course of that transition. Of course, there has to be some cut-off point, and the age of 21 is reasonable. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at that. It also strikes me that it may be a more cost-effective way of dealing with offenders in that category, because you do not have the process of handing over and entering into separate contractual arrangements with a different organisation and all the rest of it when you have already got a provider with a budget and contract which should be capable of being extended if required under the circumstances of the case.
	I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to have a look at this and come back on Report. It seems sensible and quite consistent with the approach that the Government seek to pursue.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am grateful for the debate that my noble friend has stimulated. She is absolutely right that this group of people is the most challenging in terms of the prolific number of offences for which they are responsible. In many ways, this can be a key period in their lives and can determine whether they
	live a life of crime or become constructive members of society. I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. For me, there is a sense of shame that so many who have been in our care end up in our criminal justice system. We must go into that more deeply and we shall try to do so, in part, through the Children and Families Bill and other legislation.
	What gives me some optimism that we shall be able to make this new legislation work is that there are good examples: the Manchester scheme that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to and the mentoring in Peterborough. This was raised in our discussion yesterday and I want to explore further the mentoring by those who have committed earlier misdemeanours but now play a positive role in life. I remember going to Stafford and meeting a mentor who had been heavily drug dependent, but he had cleaned himself up and was now having a really good effect on young people through the advice that he was giving them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, expressed the dilemma at Second Reading that persistent offenders end up being given short sentences that send them into a prison environment. I fully accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that that puts them into a completely ill-suited environment in terms of rehabilitation. That is one reason why part of what we are trying to develop is to start rehabilitation in prison, so that they get used to the world of work and address various failings such as literacy or drug or alcohol dependency. One of the first things I was told when I started visiting prisons and youth offending centres was, “We just start to have some effect and then we lose them”. I repeat that the period of 12 months’ supervision is not punishment but the continuation of help.
	My noble friend said that this amendment is designed to provide a power for the Secretary of State to contract the rehabilitation services when an offender volunteers for such programmes. I have already said why we think that both licence and top-up supervision should be applied to all offenders. I understand the point that often the most effective rehabilitation occurs when the offender decides that they want to change. However, the simple fact is that many offenders will not volunteer for rehabilitation programmes. Those who initially volunteer may change their mind when more challenging questions are asked of them, or when they simply become bored of what they may decide is undue hassle. Offenders who fail to comply with the programmes will simply withdraw their consent to avoid any consequences of failing to undertake the programme they initially signed up for.
	In the Bill we are ensuring that all offenders have the opportunity to receive help and assistance on release from custody. We are saying to offenders, “Here is your chance to rehabilitate yourself and turn your life around, but you cannot walk away from this and expect no consequence if you do”. That is why the licence and top-up supervision is mandatory, but also flexible, so that providers can tailor the type of support and intensity that is needed for each offender.
	I have taken time to explain that we think licence and supervision should be mandatory, but let me deal very quickly with the powers of the Secretary of State
	to contract for voluntary-based rehabilitation services. The fact is that the Secretary of State already has the power, and nothing in the Bill restricts that power, even though our intention, in the vast majority of cases, is to make licences and top-up supervision mandatory. In short, therefore, the Secretary of State does not need this power, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
	Amendment 4, on the top-up to 21 year-olds, also takes my noble friend’s application of top-up supervision. I understand that the intention of Amendment 2 is to ensure that offenders aged under 21 on release from custody will serve a period on licence but not be subject to top-up supervision. I understand my noble friend’s argument, but I disagree with it. The Government believe that all those aged 18 when released from custody should get the same level of supervision and support. The amendment would mean that an offender sentenced to two months’ imprisonment when aged 20 would serve only half their sentence in custody and have only a month of licensed supervision. Yet, as I said at the beginning, these young offenders have some of the highest reoffending rate of any group.
	Our proposals in the Bill will ensure that offenders who are 18 when released from custody get 12 months of supervision in the community. I stress again that the type and level of supervision can be tailored to the young person’s needs. I expect that providers will develop specific programmes for this age group, offering a real chance to make a difference to the needs of young offenders. The Government see this as an opportunity for real support for young offenders, not as something that they should be excluded from.
	I will clarify the point that my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham made about the crossover from YOT supervision to probation supervision. The Bill makes it clear that this will be a matter of judgment at that time, and of consultation to make sure that what is done is most effective. If the most effective course is to retain the YOT supervision, that supervision will continue. It fits in with what I keep on emphasising: this is not, to take the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, an exercise in rigidity. It is quite the opposite. It builds in the most flexible of approaches to try to tailor to the needs of the individual the kind of help and support they are going to get. However, I disagree with my noble friend, although, goodness knows, I am in awe of his experience and expertise in this area. If saying to offenders in this age group, “For the next 12 months you are going to try to mend your ways” is somehow an unfair burden on them by society, I am willing to take that risk.
	I suspect that if we can put this into place, we will start having an impact on this age group. As I have said, one of the lessons that we have to learn from the experience of this age group is that without this help, they get out of our control, become repeat offenders, going into the adult criminal justice system and the prison system with disastrous results for both themselves and their society. Therefore, I do not think that this long period of 12 months’ supervision ahead of them is somehow a terrible burden on these young people. For a significant number of them, it may be the best thing that ever happens in their lives.
	I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment. However, I will carefully read Hansard and look at our proposals for this age group. I agree with much of what noble Lords have said about offenders in this age group; if we get it right for them, there will be enormous benefits in terms of the impact on future criminal behaviour.
	As I said, I am willing to look at the arguments and think about this further, but I think we have got the balance right. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider the arguments that I have deployed. In the mean time, I hope that she will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Beecham: Accepting for a moment, for the purposes of argument, the noble Lord’s assurance—and of course I do accept his assurance—that there is the option of transition not being automatic, who decides in the end what should happen? Does this have to be agreed between the YOT and the probation service, or does it go back to the court? Where would a decision be made if there is a disagreement between the existing provider and the future providers?

Lord McNally: That is one of the things that I want to think about. I hope that the two bodies concerned would make a practical decision about the needs of the individual, but as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, if that was not available, who would be the judge? Would that have to go back to court? I will think about that, and if there is a gap we will fill it.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very thoughtful and detailed response. I am particularly grateful to hear him say, as I understand it, that there will be real flexibility based on the needs of the young people and on whether they can actually continue with the YJB, YOTs and others while they serve out their time, as it were. That is a very welcome thing to have heard.
	However, I must also say that while the Minister talks about flexibility within it, the year’s supervision is a fixed time. I have heard him say it. To have the long arm of the law wound around you for a year is a very long time for a minor offence. I was arguing essentially for flexibility there, not rigidity.
	I also thank the other noble Lords who contributed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for asking my question again, which is a very important question to hear the answer to, and the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for their very helpful remarks.
	I will, of course, now think about everything that I have heard and everything that has been said before we come to Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 2 withdrawn.
	Clause 2 : Supervision after end of sentence
	Amendments 3 to 5 not moved.
	Amendment 6
	 Moved by Lord Bradley
	6: Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
	“(7A) The supervisor must explain to the offender in language appropriate to his individual intellectual ability and understanding—
	(a) the effect of the supervision requirements, and
	(b) the effects of non-compliance with any requirement with which the offender is required to comply.”

Lord Bradley: Amendment 6 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It requires the supervising officer to explain the implications of licence conditions and the effects of non-compliance in language that is appropriate to the offender’s intellectual ability. As the Minister explained, Clauses 1 and 2 extend statutory monitoring and supervision to offenders serving short sentences for a mandatory period of up to 12 months. The introduction of a new period of statutory supervision with its own requirements, in addition to those of the licence period, adds an extra element of complexity to a person’s custodial sentence. The amendment will ensure that people with poor communication and comprehension skills, such as people with learning disabilities, will be able fully to understand the terms of their supervision requirements, and what might happen if they do not follow them.
	It is generally accepted that between 5% and 10% of adult offenders have learning disabilities, and that a significant number of juveniles reaching 18 have speech, language and communication difficulties. However, in the absence of routine screening, the support needs of this group are often left unrecognised and unmet. Research undertaken by the Prison Reform Trust—I declare an interest as a trustee of the trust, and pay tribute to the brilliant work it does on behalf of people with learning disabilities who find themselves in the criminal justice system—showed that more than two-thirds of prisoners with learning disabilities and difficulties experienced problems with verbal comprehension, including problems understanding certain words, and with expressing themselves.
	Research by various academics has shown that many people with communication difficulties lack the language skills to understand what is happening to them, and the implications of what is being asked of them. For example, many have problems understanding vocabulary that is commonly used in the criminal justice system, including words such as “victim” and “breach”. Many people with learning disabilities have limited language, comprehension and communication skills, which mean that they may have difficulty understanding and responding to questions and recalling information, and may take longer to process that information. They may also be acquiescent and suggestible, and, under pressure, may try to appease other people. Many also have memory problems, which may mean that they need regular reminders of what is expected of them over their licence and supervisory period.
	I found that all these factors came into effect when I undertook my independent review of mental health learning disabilities in the criminal justice system, and I am grateful that the Government are supporting
	many of the recommendations in the report as we move towards a national rollout of liaison and diversion schemes—including, crucially, early identification and assessment of people with complex needs, including learning disabilities. To ensure that adults understand what is expected of them during their licence and supervision period, the language used must be appropriate to the intellectual ability and understanding of the individual offender. To do otherwise will place the individual at risk of non-compliance, possible breach and a return to court. It will also fail to take into account the need for reasonable adjustments, as required by the Equality Act 2010.
	It is worth pointing out that a similar debate during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill highlighted concerns over the use of language by courts in explaining their sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that the inclusion of the term “ordinary language” was not precise enough to ensure that offenders with learning disabilities and communication difficulties would be able fully to understand and comply with the requirements placed upon them. I am pleased to quote what he said:
	“Ordinary language, however simplified, may not be sufficient to explain complex concepts or terminologies which could elude the comprehension of some individuals. For example, people with a learning disability may require easy-read formats, which include pictorial aids … different forms of communication above and beyond ordinary language must be employed, determined by what is most appropriate for the recipient”.—[Official Report, 1/2/12; col. 1652.]
	In response, the Minister agreed that guidance would be passed on to the relevant judicial training bodies for consideration. I understand that this was the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. He said:
	“I very much appreciate the advice that Mencap provided on the various techniques that could be used to explain a sentence to people with learning difficulties. That will be used in the training of judges and magistrates, and I intend to pass that on to the bodies responsible for that training”.—[Official Report, 1/2/12; col. 1660.]
	I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could update us on progress in that regard.
	Let me now turn briefly to supervision requirements. Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill outlines the requirements which may be imposed upon a person under supervision. I am concerned about the impact that some of these requirements may have on people with communication and comprehension difficulties, such as people with learning disabilities. In setting the licence and supervision requirements, the particular care and support needs of the individual should be both assessed and taken into account. One example is good behaviour. In Schedule 1, proposed new subsection (1)(a) to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a person,
	“to be of good behaviour and not to behave in a way which undermines the purpose of the supervision period”.
	I, together with organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, am concerned at the extent to which this requirement is open to interpretation. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill explicitly recognise this, stating:
	“In relation to the requirement to be of good behaviour etc, there is a certain degree of imprecision in the requirement, but it is considered that it would be clear to offenders and the court what conduct would be prohibited under the requirement”.
	The Government provide some clarity in referring to conditions outlined in Prison Service Instruction 2012/20 (licence conditions and temporary travelling abroad), stating that,
	“clear policy guidance will be issued in relation to this topic”.
	Good behaviour is highly subjective and can be used to describe many different types of behaviour. What may appear to be common sense to many people is unlikely to be explicit enough for certain vulnerable adults, such as people with learning disabilities or difficulties. It will therefore be important to ensure that any guidance recognises the intellectual ability and understanding of the individual under supervision and explicitly states and restates where necessary what would constitute a breach.
	I would therefore be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, would give the House some assurances about the proposed guidance, including when it will be issued, who will issue it, how it will be disseminated and to whom, and what additional training will be provided.
	Secondly, I turn to receiving visits. Proposed new subsection (1)(d) in Schedule 1 specifies that a person must,
	“receive visits from the supervisor in accordance with instructions given by the supervisor”.
	Again, it will be important for safeguarding issues to be fully taken into account when supervisors visit vulnerable people under their supervision, especially—for example—women and people with learning disabilities. Will the Minister give the House assurances that supervisors will be required to undertake appropriate safeguarding training work with vulnerable people?
	Thirdly, on participating in activities, proposed new subsection (1)(h) specifies that a person must,
	“participate in activities in accordance with any instructions given by the supervisor”.
	It is very important that sufficient training and relevant information are provided to ensure that supervisors are made aware when individuals have particular support needs, such as communication or comprehension, are able to ensure that the support needs of people under their supervision are met and ensure that realistic targets and expectations are set. Again, I would be very grateful to the Minister if he will clarify how the Government will ensure that people with learning disabilities and other support needs are identified, and how they will ensure that inappropriate requirements with which a person may not be able to comply are not set.
	In conclusion, I hope the Minister will confirm that he recognises the importance of ensuring that people with learning disabilities and complex needs have every chance of being successfully rehabilitated, which, clearly, is what we are all trying to achieve. I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said that the language which is used must be understandable. However, it seems to me that a word in the Bill is very confusing. It states that the relevant period is for “rehabilitation”. I am not awfully good at the English language but rehabilitation suggests to me going back to a golden age before the offence was
	committed. In fact, the life of probably the vast majority of these offenders was hell before the offence was committed. We should be looking for something better than rehabilitation—something more like habilitation.

Lord Ramsbotham: I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and, in so doing, declare two interests, one as chairman of the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties and, secondly, as a vice-president of the Centre for Mental Health, which has the privilege of hosting the follow-up work being done by the noble Lord on his excellent report, which he mentioned.
	My concern over this issue was heightened by a paragraph I read on page 9 of the White Paper, which describes how the Ministry of Justice will put in place a system which will give providers sufficient grip to make sure offenders engage with the rehabilitative services. I am not certain that “grip” is the right word to use in connection with these people.
	The noble Lord rightly mentioned his concern about the training and education of the supervisors who do not, of course, come from the probation service but from a whole host of providers yet to be realised. He mentioned the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, during the passage of which my noble friend Lord Rix and I met with the chairman of the Queen’s Bench Division to discuss how offenders could be made aware of these issues during the judicial process. We were most particularly concerned about the increasing incidence of police taking action without going to court, and making certain that offenders have the necessary representation on the part of responsible adults who can interpret matters for them. This issue needs to be looked at.
	That allows me to make another observation about the White Paper. Although it is acknowledged that many of these offenders have mental health problems, including learning disabilities, there is no mention of commissioning mental health services for them, which gives the probation service a problem. With the emergence of a new commissioning process under NHS England and of health and well-being boards, it will be important for the probation service to be associated with those boards to make certain that the proper support is available, not just in relation to the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, but in relation to all aspects of mental health problems experienced by offenders.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My noble friend Lord Northbourne’s comments on the word “rehabilitation” have stimulated my thoughts on this matter. He is absolutely right: rehabilitation can only mean a return to a condition which once existed. I am not enough of a linguist to say exactly how the word is constructed, but that is clearly what it means. I wonder, however, whether the word “reform” might be appropriate in the circumstances. I well remember one of the very first days that I attended this House, in 1981. A speech by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, a most distinguished gentleman, was given very great publicity and attention by the House. Its theme was that in the whole of his experience, both as counsel and as judge, he did not think that prison had reformed a single person. I remember
	asking myself how that could be, side by side with Rule 1 of the
	P
	rison 
	R
	ules
	of the time, which said that the chief purpose of imprisonment was the reform of the offender. Both could not possibly be right. Putting aside that irrelevance for the moment, it may very well be that the word “reform” would be a more appropriate description of the situation than “rehabilitation”.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, raised the question of the condition of supervision that a person should be of good behaviour. It may well be that Parliament should define that situation more closely and specifically. There are two aspects here. The first is the boundary that it is Parliament’s duty to place and the second is the communication of the exact location of that boundary to the defendant in appropriate circumstances. It is part and parcel of the duty of the sentencer in any aspect of sentencing to make it clear to a defendant exactly what the court means. Over and above that, it is also their duty of the interview solicitor and counsel before leaving the matter, to make quite certain that the defendant knows exactly what is meant and what is expected of him or her.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Before my noble friend sits down, surely “rehabilitation” is the correct word because it relates, not to the period before he went to prison, but to the period while he has been in prison.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, this is an important amendment, apart from the fact that we have to consider whether the Title of the Bill needs amending. I strongly support the very wise words of the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord Ramsbotham, in support of the amendment. One of the most important tasks of a court is giving explanations to offenders to make sure that those who are subject to the orders of the state understand the requirements that are placed on them. If that is the responsibility of a court and of judges, it must surely also be the responsibility of a supervisor under this Bill. I like to think that we have all had a stage in life when, until it could proved that we had done something wrong, we were innocent of having done so. If that is right, “rehabilitation” is a pretty good word to cover what is being sought to be done. I rejoiced when I saw the Title of the Bill and knew that focus was, at last, being placed on an extremely important task of the criminal justice system: to protect the public by preventing people offending again. I emphasise the word “again”.
	I hope that in due course the Minister will, following the powerful arguments advanced by others, look on this proposal with considerable sympathy. I should, like the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, disclose an interest: I am also involved with the Prison Reform Trust—not as a valuable member, as is true of the noble Lord, but as its chairman. I make that disclosure in relation to subsequent amendments that shall be advanced today.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: Perhaps I may add to the debate that the clutch of noble and noble and learned Lords started. Rehabilitation may indeed be one objective, but it may also be of interest that Rule 1 of the Prison Rules states that the people who are in such care should lead “good and useful” lives.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to reach for my copy of Roget’s Thesaurus but simply confine myself to commending my noble friend Lord Bradley on the amendment and to paying tribute to his long record of very effective concern for this issue. His point about the desirability of having some knowledge of the proposed guidance on good behaviour is a matter on which the Minister should reflect. I hope, even if a final version is not available, that at least an outline of what is intended by that definition can be provided before Report. I hope that he will accept the amendment, which seems to make a great deal of sense.
	I have just one further observation. It seems important that the communication and explanation recommended in the amendment should be given at the prison gate, as it were, before the prisoner leaves, not at some point afterwards. That would obviously make sense and I hope that the Minister will take that on board as well as the question of defining what would have been meant by “good behaviour” for the purposes of communication with a group who may struggle with that concept without adequate explanation being proffered.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as always, I have listened with great interest. I am for ever learning when I hear such wisdom from across the House, although, when listening to the debate on rehabilitation and good behaviour, I was reminded of my childhood. I perhaps disagree with one noble and learned Lord who suggested that we are all innocent. We were all guilty in front of mother, and “rehabilitation” was not a word that she used when putting us right.
	Nevertheless, I join the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in commending and acknowledging the terrific work of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for raising this issue, and acknowledge the incredible work of the work of the Prison Reform Trust. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that perhaps his worth in the Prison Reform Trust was not quite recognised because he was merely the chairman. However, his worth is well recognised in your Lordships’ House, as it is in this debate.
	All noble Lords who contributed referred to the importance of communication. I firmly believe that that is important in ensuring that the people we are seeking to assist understand what is being resolved for them in their lives and what is ultimately the goal—that they become productive citizens for the benefit of them, their families and society as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked whether I would acknowledge the importance of the requirements of those who have learning difficulties or problems in understanding. I do so from the outset—absolutely.
	Noble Lords have already referred to this, and will recall the helpful and informed debates on the subject during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Government listened to those debates and, as a result, amended the duty on courts to explain sentences, in order to allow criminal procedure rules to give sentencers guidance on how to do this. Again, there has been some debate over the word “rehabilitation”. Perhaps a thesaurus or
	dictionary could have been reached for, but I think it is the right word. It is about the rehabilitation of the individual to allow them to become productive citizens in society as a whole.
	As noble Lords mentioned, it is equally important that supervisors as well as sentencers are able to explain to offenders what is required of them, in a way that they can understand, otherwise we will simply set offenders up to fail. It may be helpful here to set out how this process already works for offenders who are released from custody on licence. Instructions for prison and probation staff are clear that they must ensure offenders understand the meaning and effect of licence conditions. If I may I will quote the relevant paragraph, which is in the Probation Instruction 20/2012 and Prison Service Instruction 40/2012:
	“When explaining licence conditions to offenders prior to release, staff must ensure that the offender understands any such conditions. This is particularly important with additional and bespoke conditions as they may contain complex or detailed requirements. In addition, staff must take into account any issues such as English as a second language”,
	which thus far has not come up in the debate, but is an important issue,
	“or learning disabilities that may prevent the offender from understanding completely what is required of them”.
	These instructions apply to both prison governors and probation staff, whether employed by the probation service or other providers. This is because for some offenders a single explanation may not be sufficient, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, reminded us. For some, it may be important that supervisors also understand the meaning and use their meetings with the offender to continue to remind them of their licence conditions, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. For others, an explanation while preparing for release will also be vital.
	To support staff in fulfilling this requirement, an easy-read version of licence conditions is available. An updated version is currently being finalised, which I will be happy to make available to noble Lords as soon as it is published. I understand that this is imminent, and I hope that it will become available during the passage of the Bill.
	The importance of training has been raised by a number of noble Lords, and we agree with that. The offender supervisor training course covers licence conditions, and also emphasises the need for effective and clear communication.
	We intend to build on these arrangements once top-up supervision is implemented. We will issue revised instructions covering both licence and supervision requirements, which will be mandated for use by both the public sector probation service and private providers. Providers will be expected to comply with instructions as part of their contracts. I am happy to commit to issuing an easy-read version of the supervision conditions in the future, to complement what is already available for licence conditions. This is part of preparing materials and guidance for the rollout. I also point out that we have ensured that, as far as possible, supervision requirements replicate relevant licence conditions. This will help offenders to understand the transition from one to the other, rather than suddenly being subject to an entirely new and different set of conditions.
	Under the new through-the-gate system, we envisage that providers will support offenders in custody before release. This will provide a number of opportunities to explain licence and supervision conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised this particular question. Let me assure your Lordships’ House that this will happen before release, through any provider working with the offender in custody; on release; through appointments with the supervisor after release; and again if an offender is warned for a technical or minor breach of licence or supervision. However, it is important that those who work with offenders can decide the best point at which to explain or re-explain licence and supervision conditions during that process.
	The other point I would make here concerns the training of supervisors, an issue raised by several noble Lords. I agree that good training is vital in this process to ensure sensitivity when dealing with those under their supervision, as is understanding the individual. That is important when determining what skills an individual may have and what skills they need to develop.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, specifically raised the issue of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. We have now taken on the role of providing advice via the Criminal Rules. I know that the committee has already had a session with Mencap, an organisation that has been mentioned in our debate, and others. It has informed the committee’s review of the rules in terms of explaining sentences. Given the need for flexibility when supervision is explained to offenders, I am not sure that a broad statutory requirement on supervisors is the best way to ensure that this happens. That is not because I disagree with the intention behind the amendment. Indeed, I support the aim of ensuring that offenders understand fully what is required of them and the consequences if they do not comply. However, I believe that the existing system of instructions, guidance and training, which will be enhanced, provides a more tailored and flexible approach, giving discretion for when the explanation takes place, who makes it and how it is best delivered.
	With the assurances I have given, including an assurance to make available the easy-read versions of the different sets of guidance we will be issuing, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Bradley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. When you move an amendment you do not expect a debate around the wording of the Bill; that was an unforeseen consequence, but I am grateful to noble Lords for enlightening us with their contributions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his support for this amendment.
	It is clear that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that people with communication and learning disabilities are fully informed and understand the requirements, and that the supervisors should be properly trained in this respect. I am pleased that the guidance which we have identified is to be issued as soon as possible; indeed, it is hoped before the Report stage so that we can be confident that that part of the process will be properly administered.
	I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given and I am sure that he will look at Hansard to check whether there are any other points that have not been picked up. That will give him an opportunity to respond, perhaps in writing, to me and to other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. We will then have a clear understanding of how we are to ensure absolutely that people with learning disabilities are able to complete their rehabilitation successfully.
	Finally, I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their kind words about my report on mental health, learning disabilities and the criminal justice system. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 6 withdrawn.
	Amendment 7
	 Moved by Lord Woolf
	7: Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
	“(7A) The Secretary of State when specifying requirements under this section in respect of female offenders must have regard to the particular needs of women.”

Lord Woolf: My Lords, there are not many matters concerned with sentencing and dealing with offenders on which there is common agreement. However, it is clear that there is consensus among all those concerned about the particular needs of female offenders. I am very conscious that the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware of this issue, and I am confident that they will say that there is no need to make any mention of it in this legislation because they accept it and are seeking to give effect to it. However, I am bound to say that one of the difficulties with relying on the good sense, judgment and experience of particular Ministers is that you can never be sure that they are going to continue to fulfil the office which they hold at present, no matter how advantageous that would be. Of course, legislation, once passed, is going to last for a substantial period of time. I am firmly of the view that we must hope that the Bill does not bite the dust but, as a result of the scrutiny by this House, becomes worthy of its objects and proves to be a Bill which those involved in the criminal justice system in the future look at as a turning point.
	It may appear arrogant for someone such as myself to suggest that a Secretary of State should need to have the reminder in the amendment, which requires the Secretary of State, when specifying requirements under this section in respect of female offenders, to have regard to the particular needs of women. However, while it may be arrogant of me, it is not arrogant of this House to take the view that that is a sensible and desirable safeguard, because history has indicated that, sadly, all too often, the criminal justice system, particularly when concerned with sentencing female offenders has not recognised their needs as they should. I know the Minister in his present role has been visiting assiduously criminal justice institutions up and down the land and has accumulated a great deal of knowledge. Unfortunately, Ministers eventually have to go and new Ministers come in their place, and they may not have the same knowledge that I know the Ministers in this Committee have of the special and particular needs of women.
	I hope that this carefully drafted amendment—I emphasise that I was not responsible for the precise drafting—will in no way curtail the Secretary of State’s powers, but merely indicate what he must have regard to. That surely is a safeguard that could be properly included in the Bill. I hope that the Minister, because he understands the special problems of women in the criminal justice system, will take away this proposal and feel that it is one to which he can give effect in due course.
	As other noble Lords who are engaged in this Committee are well aware, Amendment 7 is linked to very similar requirements contained in Amendments 25, 27, 28 and 29, for which I am also responsible. It is not always possible to find a way of happily bringing together all the points, but what I have said now applies to the other persons who are referred to in those specific amendments, who should also have regard to the special needs of female offenders. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My noble friends Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Dholakia and I have Amendments 10, 11 and 12 in this group. The three amendments are on the same subject, the needs of female offenders, but are a little more specific. I very warmly support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
	According to Section 217 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court, in certain circumstances, has to avoid “as far as practicable” imposing a requirement where there might be,
	“conflict with the offender’s religious beliefs”,
	or with the times when,
	“he normally works or attends any educational establishment”.
	I use the term “he” to mean any offender, of course. To take the issue of female offenders’ concerns a little further, it seemed to me that those include family circumstances and the need to act as a carer, not just to children but perhaps to a spouse, an infirm elderly parent or to other family members. Building on what we have in the 2003 Act, I suggest that the supervisor shall “have regard to”—using the same words as the noble and learned Lord in that respect—“the compatibility” of the supervision requirements with “the offender’s family circumstances”. Caring is something particularly in my mind. The requirements might include one to attend at a particular place, such as one of the various centres which provide services and activities of a rehabilitative nature. When the offender, generally the mother, is responsible for a child and it is desirable that the child goes with her, that should be taken into account. My noble friend, I think on the first amendment, referred to both “flexibility and common sense”. These seem to me to be common-sense points but it does no harm to spell them out. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that there should be no need to be specific, Section 217 is quite specific.
	On the second amendment, although we will of course be told that this is the case, I would, again, like the reassurance that a requirement specified under new Section 256AA must be “reasonable and proportionate”. It seems to me that those words are themselves reasonable and proportionate. I hope that the Minister who is
	answering—it looks as if it is going to be the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—can give me that reassurance. New Section 256AA(6) provides that the Secretary of State has to “have regard”, as we have said, to the purpose of rehabilitation. However, it seems important to apply these restrictions and to require the compatibility to which I have referred.
	Section 217 of the 2003 Act applies to relevant orders which are defined in Section 196 of that Act. I was persuaded by my noble friend that it would be going over the top to check out the drafting of the Bill by tabling an amendment to that section, but I would be glad to know, if not today then before Report stage, whether Section 196 is being amended, and if it is not, whether it does not need to be amended. It refers to community orders, custody plus—which, of course, has gone—suspended sentences and intermittent custody orders.
	Finally, I come to Amendment 12. We have referred to flexibility. I am unclear how supervision requirements can be varied during the fixed one-year term of supervision and my Amendment 12 is directed to the ability for the supervisor to deal with variation. I am particularly pleased to be able to support the lead amendment in this group tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

Lord Judd: I hope noble Lords will forgive me but, to make a clean breast of it, I came in when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was in mid-stream. I just feel I cannot sit here without saying that I think this group of amendments is crucial. It puts into perspective what we are doing. Are we primarily about finding alternative means of punishment or are we primarily about rehabilitation? If we are about rehabilitation, it must be tailored to the individual concerned. If this in any way makes the rehabilitation to full, productive membership of society more difficult—and we all know that in many cases it is because people’s lives are in chaos that they end up in these situations—then we are not helping at all. These amendments are there to strengthen the intention of the Bill, if it really is about rehabilitation.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I added my name to one of the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, rather thinking that they would be grouped together. That was perhaps the result of not being allowed the time to get our act together, but I suppose I must apologise. I hope my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf will be happy if I speak to this amendment and associate it with the other amendment. As well as supporting everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf on this issue, my particular concern is for the effect on the families of female offenders. I am concerned about their special needs because, as we all know, these women often have mental health problems and, I am sad to say, they have often been abused as young women. There is a lot of history of that. Drink and drugs also figure quite highly. But above all, the actual offences committed are often of a very minor nature. I can remember a visit to a women’s prison on one occasion and being asked by the women concerned why they had such harsh sentences compared with what a man would get for a similar offence.
	Going back to the effect on the family, we need to know how many homes are broken up as a result of women being given a prison sentence, because that is a huge cost. If we are thinking, as we must, of financial costs as well as emotional and family costs, and of the long-term effect on the children of that family and their need to be taken into care, this should rate very highly on the list of considerations when sentences are being passed. I back what has been said by other Members, and I hope the Minister will be able to address these points and reassure us that by the time we come to Report there will be a much more satisfactory framework for what is intended for women offenders.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf on Amendment 7. I understand that at this moment the Justice Select Committee in the other place is conducting an inquiry into women offenders. One of the areas on which it has had a lot of evidence of concern is payment by results. With reference to what we were told yesterday about cohorts, I presume that women offenders will be separate cohorts as far as payment by results is concerned and that the results that have to be achieved will be tailored to women and very carefully considered.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I do not think that my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf need apologise in any way for the amendment. There is no suggestion of arrogance in spelling out duties such as these. In the past 30 years, we have had about 30 criminal justice Acts, whether they carried that name or not, and I would be very surprised if one were not able to find in each and every one of them some structure not unlike that proposed by my noble and learned friend. If one thinks of the very basis of a prison sentence, at least 25 years ago that structure was spelled out in a way that some might think embarrassing to a sentencer, because it seems to me that no sentencer would ever conceive of approaching the problem in any other way. The statute states that the sentencer has to consider whether the offence that has been committed is serious enough to justify imprisonment in the circumstances and that he must then go back to see, in the light of all the circumstances, including the personal circumstances of the defendant, whether it is necessary for there to be a sentence of immediate imprisonment. In one respect, one could say that that is utterly insulting. Could there ever have been a sentencer so lacking in understanding and conscience not to approach his or her duty in that way? Yet, as a circuit judge, I had to look at that section day in, day out, and I found it utterly reassuring. I plead the point that there is nothing wrong in spelling out a duty, even though that duty might be obvious to everybody looking at the situation.
	Like so many others who have been involved with the criminal courts, I have taken the view that men commit offences on account of all possible features in the range of human wickedness. In the case of women, it is very different. The splendid report on women in prison written some years by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, reinforced the point that many of them are not criminals at all and should not be in prison. I am not saying that some of them have not committed
	truly horrendous offences, but that must be a very small proportion, and a very high proportion of women in prison should not be there. Including these principles in legislation, obvious though they are, would do no harm whatever.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, Amendment 9, which is part of this group, would add a mental health assessment as a supervision requirement in Schedule 1. As noble Lords will be aware, a high percentage of prisoners suffer from mental health difficulties, and the purpose of the amendment is that the sentencing court should be able to add a mental health assessment as a requirement that would benefit offenders when they came out of prison. Of course, it is far more desirable that this is picked up far earlier upstream, but there may be occasions where it has not been picked up, and it is obviously an issue. Sentencers should be able to add this as a requirement, so if it is not going to be picked up in prison it will be when the supervision period starts. That is the purpose of Amendment 9.
	On Amendment 7 and the others, I agree with everything that has been said. I particularly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that many of the points were common sense. I will, if I may, tell one brief anecdote. A friend of mine recently visited a women’s prison in Scotland and talked to the governor, who said: “If I were to open all the doors today, only a very small fraction of the women would actually leave this prison. Most of them would choose to stay here because of the security the prison gives them.”.
	As we have heard, the problems faced by women in prison are very different. I think it is generally acknowledged, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, these amendments put forward a common-sense approach. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Judd is right when he says that the Government’s real intention is to address rehabilitation, which is a fundamental problem. This Bill introduces provisions that were not in place before. We might differ about the funding and all the rest, but the fundamental intention of this Bill is a good thing.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Again, many valid contributions have been made. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, right from the beginning that of course it is the Government’s intention, as has just been acknowledged, to ensure that people in unfortunate circumstances, which they sometimes do not have control of, are actually rehabilitated and become productive citizens, as I said in our debate on the previous group of amendments, for themselves, their families and for society as whole.
	I also was a bit concerned—and I must confess something here—when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, not once but twice and perhaps even thrice referred to Ministers not remaining in their place. I looked with great concern at my noble friend Lord McNally. I thought that he was indeed my
	friend, but perhaps that is a discussion that we shall have privately. Nevertheless, I take on board the more serious point which the noble and learned Lord made in that respect. However, it is important, as discussions thus far have demonstrated, that the principle behind this Bill and the importance that underlies it are not just respected but that every Member of your Lordships’ House, no matter where they sit in the Chamber, is committed to ensuring that this Bill, as my noble friend Lord McNally has said on a number of occasions, reflects the great expertise in your Lordships’ Chamber when it leaves this House.
	This group of amendments all relate to the conditions that can be imposed as part of top-up supervision and to what the Secretary of State should have regard to when specifying the conditions that can be included or what providers of services should have regard to when directing offender activities. In short, they are all about tailoring top-up supervision to the particular needs of offenders.
	Amendment 7 relates to women offenders, about whom many sentiments and points have been raised, many of which, if not all, I agree with. The amendment, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, would, as he explained very eloquently, place a duty on the Secretary of State when imposing supervision requirements to have regard to the particular needs of women. The Government fully share the noble and learned Lord’s intention and view it as essential that the justice system is properly responsive to the needs of female offenders. We know that we will only rehabilitate these women who have fallen into this area and enable them to lead positive and productive lives if we truly take account of their experiences and, more importantly, their needs.
	Noble Lords will be aware that the probation service already takes a women-focused approach to female offenders. All probation trusts are required by the National Offender Management Service commissioning intentions document to make appropriate provision for women in the community to address factors associated with their reoffending, and to using third sector and private sector services where appropriate. Similarly, we expect providers to recognise and respond to the particular needs of female offenders. Therefore, in employing the new supervision requirements introduced by the Bill to female offenders, it will likewise be essential to take account of the particular needs of the case in question, including, importantly, any childcare responsibilities.
	My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the fact that stable family relationships are important in supporting rehabilitation. A failure to take childcare responsibilities into account could put at risk the very purpose of the supervision period itself. However, the Government’s view is that we do not need a statutory provision to ensure that the needs of female offenders are taken into account. The key difference is that in future all offenders, both women and men, who are serving a custodial sentence of less than 12 months will have an assessment of risks and needs. This assessment will be undertaken by prison or probation staff and will cover the key areas of need. These include accommodation, mental health needs, skills and employment, children,
	families and, something which many women often sadly endure, issues of domestic violence.
	The Government recognise that a significant number of female prisoners are vulnerable and have complex needs. The process allows for additional time to complete the assessment in such cases, so as to ensure that all their needs are not just identified but fully understood. The information gathered by this assessment will be used to draw up a bespoke plan for the sentence in custody and in the community that takes account of and will address the particular needs of that individual. This information will also be shared with service providers in the community, so that they, too, fully understand the individual offender’s needs and can then, importantly, tailor their services to help address these needs. We are therefore confident that the needs of female offenders will be identified and taken into account when setting the new supervision requirements. Therefore, we do not believe that the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is necessary.
	Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on mental health assessments, relates to Schedule 1, which sets out the conditions that can be applied to the top-up supervision and adds a mental health assessment requirement. I welcome the noble Lord’s focus on mental health. Addressing the mental health needs of offenders is a priority for the Government. We know that we need to do more to make sure that offenders with mental health issues do not fall through the net. We all share that sentiment; indeed, that was discussed during consideration of the previous group of amendments. However, this should be done at the earliest possible opportunity—indeed, the noble Lord himself identified that—and not at the end of the process with top-up supervision. When my noble friend and I discussed this matter with officials, we impressed upon them the need to ensure that wherever in the process this issue is raised, we seek to address it according to the individual needs of that person. Providing appropriate intervention and treatment at the right time and in the right place is vital to improving outcomes for people with mental illness.
	For some offenders with severe issues, in-patient treatment under the Mental Health Act will be appropriate. For others with less serious problems, there are already many opportunities for intervention and treatment. These include mental health treatment as a requirement of the community sentence and the comprehensive screening of every offender as they arrive in prison. I will share my own experience with noble Lords, since I have been involved in this area. When I visited Peterborough prison, I saw that as prisoners entered through the prison gate, their health, training, development, language, family and cultural issues were identified. That is the kind of model that we need to be working to. As soon a prisoner enters through the prison gate, we should be looking to help to reform—a word that has been used—and rehabilitate them from that point on so that by the time they come to the end of their sentence and go out into society, and I have no qualms about repeating what I said earlier, they become productive citizens for the benefits of themselves and of society as a whole.
	I understand, of course, what the noble Lord has said about mental health also being a key element of tackling reoffending. It is of course crucial that the mental health status of the offender is ascertained before any trial or sentence, which is why pre-sentence reports will continue to give assistance to the court.
	We also need to ensure that more people are assessed effectively and early enough to make sure that all those with mental health issues get referred to treatment. That is why the Government are developing liaison and diversion services to be introduced into every police station and criminal court. Liaison and diversion services will enable all those who come into contact with the criminal justice system to be assessed at the outset for a range of health issues, including mental health. Where people are identified as having health needs, a referral to a treatment or appropriate services is made. That means, of course, that health needs can be taken into account at all stages of the process, including charging and sentencing decisions. Information will be shared that will support the continuity of treatment for as long as it is needed by the individual. This should mean that more people are identified and that those with responsibility for the management and care of the offender as they move through the system and come out of prison will be aware of any treatment needs.
	What is needed post-release is to ensure the continuity of treatment, rather than to reassess offenders. I am sure all noble Lords agree with that objective. Our proposals include a through-the-gate service where providers will engage with offenders before release and then help them to resettle into their communities. This service will support better continuity of treatment and access. Providers will be able to support the offender to access the services they need as they return to their communities.
	I also expect any mental health treatment to be addressed as a priority. Engaging with the offender before release means that the providers can seek to arrange provision immediately upon release on licence for the offender to be supported into treatment in the community. I therefore welcome this amendment, but I believe that assessments at an earlier stage, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, are likely to achieve the desired objectives.
	Moving on to Amendments 10, 11 and 12 in this group, in the names of my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lord Marks and Lord Dholakia, Amendment 10 would add a new requirement to Schedule 1, which places a duty on the supervisor giving instructions to offenders on activities as part of top-up supervision to have regard to the compatibility of the activities with the offender’s family circumstances or, indeed, importantly, childcare responsibilities. Amendment 11 would add a new provision that every requirement imposed as part of top-up supervision must be reasonable and proportionate to the purpose of top-up supervision. Amendment 12 would add to the Secretary of State’s order-making power an ability to make provision about the requirements of top-up supervision and how they may be varied by supervisors.
	I of course understand why it is important that activities do not interfere with family circumstances or childcare responsibilities, and why the requirements and activities under top-up supervision should be proportionate. I say to my noble friends that the Bill already includes a number of provisions that are particularly designed to focus the top-up supervision on rehabilitation. Clause 2 explicitly states that the purpose of the top-up supervision is for the rehabilitation of the offender, and the supervisor of the offender must have regard to that purpose when supervising the offender. Schedule 1 also provides a power for the Secretary of State to make a provision about the requirements of top-up supervision and the circumstances in which they are imposed.
	For many years, prison governors acting on behalf of the Secretary of State have set licence conditions for those serving custodial sentences of over 12 months. The Secretary of State and his representatives will continue to set licence and, now, top-up supervision conditions. The experienced staff who set these conditions are aware of the need to make them proportionate and relevant to the individual offender. They are aware of the need to make these requirements practical and, indeed, achievable. They will be able to amend or vary the conditions if circumstances change. Providers supervising offenders will have to refer any breach action that is to be taken to court to the public sector probation service, which will also act as a second pair of eyes in regard to the appropriateness of conditions and the circumstances of any failure to comply. In short, there are already safeguards designed to ensure that the top-up supervision is focused on rehabilitation and that the conditions are sensitive to the particular circumstances of the offender.
	My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the issue of Section 196 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Currently, we have no plans to amend that section, but I will look at the specific concern that she raised and if need be I will write to her in that regard. Based on the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws the amendment, as I assume he will, I wish to refer to that last point. Perhaps the Minister could ask his officials to let me know how Section 217—the one that I quoted about compatibility with religion and so on—can be brought to apply in the circumstances under this Bill if Section 196 is not amended. It is a matter of how it all knits together.
	I wish to make one point. As the noble and learned Lord implied, rehabilitation can be the objective, but there are people who do not take into consideration the appropriate matters to move towards rehabilitation in a way that most people would think they should. It could be that some people in the criminal justice system think that one can achieve rehabilitation without putting the individual into his, or in this case her own, circumstances and context.
	Perhaps we can pursue this after today but, bearing that in mind, as the supervision requirements are spelled out in detail in Schedule 1, are we in danger of
	them being construed so as to exclude the types of matters which I think all noble Lords who have spoken have referred to? Might they override those considerations because they are there in the statute? Anyone looking at it would say, “The only requirements that the Secretary of State may specify as being an executive action are the ones that are listed in paragraphs (a) to (j), so the other considerations do not have the same status or weight and I can disregard them, or at any rate have less regard to them”. Perhaps I can leave that thought with the Minister.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, I hope that the Minister, for whose response I am grateful, will reconsider what he has said today. With great respect, I do not think that he has met the points that we are making. In the future, we hope that the special position of women will be considered properly. For a very long period, the criminal justice system has failed in that respect. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for timing his entry into the Chamber so admirably. He picked up the great importance of the issue.
	The problem is that the present Administration may not take this seriously if there are no clear signposts in the Bill. The Bill is meant to deal with particular problems that exist. The Minister recognised that in his remarks in relation to female offenders. Therefore, we have to break away from a clearly established pattern. It is very important that this constructive legislation shows clearly that it intends to tackle this issue. I hope that the Minister will think about what has been said during the course of the debate. I am extremely grateful for what other noble Lords have said and I am glad of their support. Their words deserve very careful consideration, which I hope they will receive. On Report, I hope that the Minister will have some good news for those who see this as a situation that needs to be addressed in a positive way. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, and I thank those who took part in the debate.
	Amendment 7 withdrawn.
	Amendment 7A
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	7A: Clause 2, page 2, line 40, leave out from “services” to end of line 42 and insert “that is a public sector provider or a person commissioned by a public sector provider”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend subsection (2) of Clause 2 which, in turn, seeks to insert new Section 256AA into the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The amendment seeks to amend new subsection (8) of the new section in relation to the definition of a supervisor of persons subject to the supervision which will, when the Bill is passed, take effect for prisoners serving less than two years.
	The purpose of the amendment is to be clear that the provider of the supervision should be a public sector organisation. At the moment, presumably it would normally be a probation trust or an organisation commissioned by such an organisation. It seems to me and to my noble friend important that there should be a clear public line of accountability for the provision of this service, which does not necessarily seem to be
	the case according to the wording of the proposed subsection as it that now appears. It is a fairly basic point. Given that we are looking at a significant responsibility, some of which at the moment is not exercised at all by the probation service—that is to say supervision of people serving less than 12 months—an important line of public accountability should be established. That in no way precludes, of course, the engagement of the third sector in relation to supervision of offenders, as long as they have been contracted by a public authority.
	Of course, there are many examples of probation trusts working with voluntary organisations at the moment. I know that in my own area, Northumbria, a probation trust has very good working relationships and in Newcastle there is a successful scheme that has been commissioned in that way. There is no intention at all to ensure that all the supervision is actually carried out by the probation service but, if that is not the case, there should at least be that line of public accountability. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord will be quick to tell me if I am wrong, but as I read it, Amendment 7A has a very clear effect. It is to ensure that all top supervision of offenders should be carried out by the public sector providers or those bodies commissioned by the public sector. I have never hidden from this House that we believe, particularly in the present economic conditions, that we will be able to find the resources to carry through our rehabilitation revolution only by employing payment by results and involving the skills and initiatives of the private and voluntary sectors.
	We are breaking new ground in our approach. We are committed to providing, for the first time in decades, supervision for those released from short custodial sentences. One of our key objectives is finally to tackle the unacceptably high level of reoffending among this group. That prize is worth striving for. However, to achieve that aim we have to be able to afford this additional supervision. To do that, we need to reduce our current costs of dealing with offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, does not think that we can do this. I say to him that we cannot do so by only going down old ways and old costs. Competing the majority of probation services will improve value and efficiency throughout the system, making taxpayers’ money go further. For example, competing the community payback contracts in London saw a £25 million saving over four years. We will also look at efficiencies within the public sector by consolidating back-office functions and creating one national public sector probation service. That is another real plus for the Bill. I remember the debates nearly a decade ago, and I was never happy that the probation service was a kind of junior partner to the Prison Service. One of the effects of the Bill will be to create a national probation service with real status and a real voice in these matters. We also want to encourage innovation among providers of probation services, to ensure that we make a real change in reoffending rates. By paying providers in full only when they are successful at reducing reoffending we will not only make savings but will drive down reoffending rates.
	We want to avoid what the last Government did. We do not want to create a sentencing regime that is overly prescriptive, complex, and unaffordable. In other words, we do not want to create another custody plus sentence, the flagship policy of the 2003 Act, which ended up never being implemented. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will be reassured that we have learnt those lessons from the past, and that in the light of my explanation he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: If I do, it will not be because of the noble Lord’s explanation. However, of course I will not press this matter to a vote.
	We will come later to the question of payment by results and the considerable doubts that many of us on these Benches and in other parts of your Lordships’ House have about that as an appropriate way of dealing with the sensitive area of supervision. I stress again, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made clear earlier, that we strongly support the drive for reducing reoffending and that we are engaged with a question of the practicalities.
	I come back to the position that in our view that line of accountability at the level of the provision of service should ultimately rest with a public sector body and not simply be hived off completely, even if the work is subcontracted—and there is no particular reason why that should not be the case. I mention specifically third sector organisations because they have a particularly valuable role to play. My amendment would not exclude contracting with private sector organisations, for that matter. However, they would be contracted by the public sector body with the legitimate experience. However, as I indicated I will not press this tonight, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 7A withdrawn.
	Clause 2 agreed.
	Amendment 7B
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	7B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
	“Duty for all providers of probation services to attend community safety partnership meetings and co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships
	(1) Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (formulation and implementation of strategies) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after “responsible authorities” insert “including all future providers of probation services”.
	(3) In subsection (1)(a)(i) after “disorder in the area” insert “to include attendance at local community safety partnership meetings and co-operation with crime and disorder reduction partnerships”.”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, it is common ground between all Members of your Lordships’ House, and reflected in some of the amendments that we have already debated, that the problems suffered by and indeed occasioned by offenders are complex and often multiple, and that in dealing with them no single agency is likely to be able to resolve all those problems
	or help people entirely overcome the difficult issues that they face. On the contrary, it is quite clear that in a number of areas, collaboration between various agencies will be required if we are to achieve the shared objective of reducing reoffending, both from the perspective of the advantage to society and of the individuals concerned. Therefore, looking at what is most likely to avoid reoffending, we know—and it has been rehearsed many times in your Lordships’ House—that the principal steps that can be taken to diminish reoffending relate to employment and in particular to housing, but also to issues such as health.
	A number of different agencies could and should be involved in all these aspects, both in the direct provision of services and in the case of commissioning services, so that, for example, local authorities clearly have a role. I suggest that in shire county areas that is at both levels—of adult services which are county level responsibility, and housing, which is a district level responsibility. However, of course, in unitary authorities they are located within the same authority. Obviously the police have a role, but also in terms of employment one has to look at the Department for Work and Pensions. In terms of health, in the new organisation of the health service, I suggest that one has to look at two levels: the clinical commissioning groups and the national Commissioning Board, because they have responsibility over areas of mental health.
	All these need to be involved, and many of them are already involved, in local arrangements, such as community safety partnerships and crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Some of them are involved in the health and well-being boards, which prepare strategic needs assessment. I would hope that the needs of offenders are reflected in those bodies. However, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all providers of the services which the Bill seeks to introduce, or at any rate ensure are available, come together with the other relevant agencies so that a genuine cross-sectoral partnership is dealing with these issues. Of course, that puts a responsibility on the other partners, as well as on the direct providers of probation services or supervisory services.
	I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, at least on this occasion, this is meant to be a friendly amendment, designed to achieve some progress on a commonly shared objective, and I look forward to hearing his response.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I always assume that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is working in the most constructive manner. I was a little brusque with him in my previous reply. I thought that perhaps buried away in his innocent amendment was an effect that might have undermined the purpose of our Bill. However, in respect of Amendment 7B, I would not even entertain such an unworthy thought. I understand where he is coming from; let me try to explain our approach.
	This amendment would provide that all future providers of probation services would be responsible authorities for the purposes of formulating and implementing crime reduction strategies. It would also mean that all responsible authorities, not just probation providers, would be obliged to attend community safety partnership meetings and co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships.
	The Government fully share the sentiment in this amendment but nothing that we do will work unless it is rooted in local partnerships. The Transforming Rehabilitation strategy made clear that the Government expect new providers to engage with statutory and non-statutory local strategic and delivery partnerships. These will, of course, include community safety partnerships, but also others such as integrated offender management, safeguarding boards and youth offending teams. It will be in providers’ interests to work with other partners to achieve the best results, and our payment mechanism, which will reward reductions in reoffending, will incentivise them to do so.
	However, we also set out in the strategy our clear expectation that providers will need to demonstrate how they will work in and strengthen local partnerships to deliver the results that they are incentivised to achieve. As part of the formal evaluation of this, we will include a requirement that providers’ evidence how they will sustain and develop networks and partnerships. Once the system is up and running, we will monitor local partnership working as part of obtaining assurances of the delivery of services. We will liaise with police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other relevant partners as appropriate.
	I have set out our commitment and the steps that we are taking to ensure that our reforms are rooted in local partnerships so that offenders can access the broad package of support that they need to get their lives back on track. Incentivising providers to focus relentlessly on reducing reoffending means that it is in their interests to work with other partners and in local partnerships. However, we must ensure that providers have the flexibility to do what works. Integration at local level works best when it is not mandated centrally.
	Sections 5 and 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already specify that where contractual arrangements so provide, providers of probation services will be responsible to authorities for the purpose of crime reduction strategies. We have no plans to change the legislation in this respect. We are doing further detailed work on the contractual requirements on providers, and will look at how we address issues such as lack of engagement with partners locally. However, as I have already touched on, it will be in the provider’s interest to work with other partners to achieve the best result under our system, and we will incentivise them to do so. We will monitor local partnership working as part of obtaining assurance of the delivery service. As I have said, we will liaise with the police and crime commissioners, local authorities and others in this task. We are doing further detailed work on the contractual requirements on providers and will look at how we address issues such as lack of engagement.
	However, it will be in the provider’s interest to do this work. For this reason, although I think it is an important issue, I hope that my reply convinces the noble Lord that it is one that we are keeping in mind as we draw up the contracts. We will try to get the balance right between flexibility in operation, which we have continually emphasised, and an important emphasis on local engagement, commitment and monitoring, which the noble Lord has rightly raised in this amendment. Having given such a warm and constructive reply, I hope that he will agree to withdraw it.

Lord Beecham: Out of sheer surprise, I certainly will. I welcome the thrust of the Minister’s reply. From the way that the amendment is framed, it looks as though responsibility is intended to fall only on the provider of the supervision but, of course, a wide range of other organisations—some statutory—need to be involved. While the Minister and the department will keep an eye on these matters, it is important that other departments are also engaged, including departments at a national level, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government. Then, at local level, there are various bodies such as local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and the like.
	I wonder whether a cross-governmental approach on this would be sensible, although not necessarily at this point, rather than simply leaving it to the Ministry of Justice to adumbrate the desiderata of co-operation, but ensuring that there is buy-in from other government departments. Equally, we might approach, for example, the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president thereof—to encourage local authorities to recognise the importance of their role in this new programme.
	There is nothing between us on this. I hope that spirit of joint approach, which has been evident in the Chamber tonight, will be communicated to those who will be taking the important decisions at the local and, indeed, the national level. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 7B withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 : Supervision Requirements
	Amendment 8
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	8: Schedule 1, page 20, line 6, leave out paragraph 1

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I expect this will be another brief debate. There are two matters to which I want to draw attention in this amendment, and they relate to Schedule 1, which seeks to introduce a new provision, again into the Criminal Justice Act 2003. One relates to the requirements that the Secretary of State may specify must be adhered to by an offender on supervision. That is in relation to the,
	“requirement to reside permanently at an address approved by the supervisor and to obtain the prior permission of the supervisor for any stay of one or more nights at a different address”.
	While one can well see the importance of residence, particularly in cases where it is undesirable for an offender to reside in a particular location—for example, if there has been an incident of domestic violence and that is the subject of his or her conviction. Equally, however, there are very vulnerable people in the system. If they were, for example, to return to the family home—particularly in the case of a young person, but not necessarily in only those cases—where there are already problems, one can envisage circumstances in which they may be unable to continue to reside there and it may be almost an emergency situation.
	I hope it would be clear that, in those circumstances, as long as the offender takes the first opportunity to notify that he or she has not been able to return to that place of residence, that would not lead to a breach. I assume that would be the case, but some words on the record from the noble Lord would perhaps be helpful.
	My other question is a simple one in relation new Clause 256AB(4), which relates to the fact that the Secretary of State may, by order, specify additional requirements, or “remove or amend” the requirements that have already been set out in new subsection (1). The order will presumably have to take the form of something laid before the House. The question is whether that would be an order subject to negative or affirmative resolution. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.

Lord Haskel: I have to inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 9 to 12 because of pre-emption.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I hope I am answering the amendment that the noble Lord has moved, because I am just wondering what Amendment 8 would actually do. It would remove paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which amends the 2003 Act and sets out the conditions under which the Secretary of State may top up supervision. I have already said that top-up supervision is a useful device to ensure that there is a reasonable period of supervision to enable a change to be made to the offending behaviour. Therefore, the amendment has the unusual and perhaps unintended effect of not removing the provision for top-up supervision that is contained in Clause 2.

Lord Beecham: It is purely a probing amendment. There is no intention to remove the provision.

Lord McNally: Instead, it would simply remove any statutory controls on the conditions that can be imposed during the supervision period. When sentencing offenders to custody, courts will be unaware of the limits to the conditions that may be imposed by the Secretary of State. This could affect their sentencing behaviour if they decide that they need to compensate for the risk of punitive supervision conditions being imposed. It also, strangely, retains the detail of drug testing and drug appointments under the top-up supervision, which are in paragraph 2 of the schedule, along with the process for dealing with the breach of supervision. However, it removes the reference to them as conditions of the supervision.
	The noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment. I will look again and reflect on what exactly he was probing. If I need to clarify this, I will. On his question about a resident who for unforeseen circumstances was in breach, again, I hope that what we are doing is not setting up circumstances for individuals to fail; these are meant to be supportive, sensible, intelligent ways of dealing with individuals whom we know—as has been emphasised—often have very complex
	problems. The noble Lord has probed, I have responded, and if the matter requires further clarification, I will certainly provide it.

Lord Beecham: I am grateful for the second—unscripted—part of the noble Lord’s speech. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 8 withdrawn.
	Amendments 9 to 12 not moved.
	Schedule 1 agreed.
	Clause 3 : Breach of supervision requirements
	Amendment 13
	 Moved by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
	13: Clause 3, page 3, line 38, after “may” insert “if satisfied that the interests of justice so require”

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 16 and 17 in this group. All the amendments are in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Dholakia. Our amendments concern sanctions for the breach of supervision requirements. Clause 3 deals with such sanctions. Noble Lords will have seen that failure to comply with supervision requirements may lead to information being laid before a justice and to the issue of a summons, with or without an arrest warrant, as appropriate. On proof of a breach of supervision requirements without reasonable excuse, it is proposed by new Section 256AC(4) that the court may do one of four things. First, it may impose a sentence of 14 days in prison or in a young offender institution, as appropriate. Secondly, it may impose a fine. Thirdly, it may impose an unpaid work requirement. Fourthly, it may impose a curfew requirement. The clause is permissive, so it would be open to a court also to take no action. However, as drafted, the clause establishes no test for when action is or is not appropriate.
	As has been pointed out, the Secretary of State very helpfully attended a meeting of all Peers yesterday and explained the purposes of new Section 256AC(4). The first purpose was, effectively, punishment. He explained that because this section is concerned with offenders who have been sentenced to prison and who then on release are subject to supervision requirements, it should be made clear that if the offender does not comply with those requirements, there will be a penal sanction. That effectively is why the four sanctions that I listed—imprisonment, a fine, unpaid work or a curfew requirement—are penal in nature.
	The second purpose he outlined was personal deterrence. He explained that offenders should not think that the supervision requirements are in any sense voluntary, and that if they choose to ignore them or fail to comply with them, nothing will happen. He might have added that there should also be an element of public deterrence, so that the world will know that if offenders disobey supervision requirements, they will be liable to penal sanctions.
	Those propositions may be sound; I do not dissent from them. However, they do not advance rehabilitation, which is the purpose of the Bill. Furthermore, offenders on release from short sentences are, as the Government and many noble Lords have pointed out, particularly fallible. It may be that in many cases a court would take the view that instead of imposing one of the four penal sanctions, it would be better in the interests of rehabilitation for the supervision requirements previously imposed by the Secretary of State to be varied. It may be that they should be varied to stronger requirements or to requirements that are better targeted to the particular needs of the offender, which may have been revealed by the breach of the requirements that had been imposed earlier—or by the proceedings taken after the breach and the investigation before the magistrates in court when the breach was looked at.
	The possible requirements that can be imposed are to be found in Schedule 1. They cover a broad range and are very flexible. It is right that an offender may start with a very relaxed regime but a court may take the view on investigation that although the breach of those requirements justifies the imposition of a much tighter regime, it does not require one of the four penal sanctions. Amendment 16 would allow the court to recommend to the Secretary of State that the requirements be varied. Why should they be varied on the Secretary of State’s recommendation? It is because the notice imposing requirements comes from the Secretary of State by virtue of new Section 256AA. I accept that it is therefore right that the court’s power should be to make a recommendation for the Secretary of State to vary the requirements rather than to make an order imposing such a variation. The proposed scheme allows the court much more flexibility than it has under the Bill as drafted. That flexibility would both be useful and advance the cause of rehabilitation.
	Amendments 13 and 17 are designed to ensure that the courts have some guidance about the proper response to a breach. Noble Lords will remember that at Second Reading, concerns were rightly expressed by a number of Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, that the purpose of the Bill, which is rehabilitation, might be frustrated by the excessive imposition of sanctions for breach. As the Bill is presently drafted, the court has no indication as to when it ought or ought not to impose a sanction. Amendment 13 would give a clear direction as to what should be the court’s approach to a breach of supervision requirements. It would impose a threshold test so that the power to impose sanctions would be exercisable where the court was satisfied that the interests of justice require a sanction to be imposed. While I accept that it may be said that that can be inferred from the permissive nature of the power, it seems to me that the purpose and the test should be expressed on the face of the Bill. Amendment 17 would help to secure some policy consistency and uniformity in the imposition of sanctions by requiring that the Sentencing Council should publish guidelines in respect of the imposition of sanctions for breach of supervision requirements.
	These amendments introduce flexibility to allow for the appropriate treatment of individual offenders and individual cases of breach. They are in the interests of
	rehabilitation which the Bill is designed to promote. They do not undermine the policies which the Secretary of State outlined yesterday and which he rightly wishes to implement in pursuit of that policy. I therefore invite my noble friend the Minister and his department to consider them on that basis. I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, my Amendment 14, which is very similar in many ways to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would help to ensure that the purpose of the new supervision period is primarily rehabilitative by removing custody as a sanction for technical breach of requirements. It would retain the sanctions available to the courts of imposing a fine or a supervision default order imposing either an unpaid work requirement or a curfew requirement. The option of recall to custody for breach of conditions during the licence period is unaffected.
	The Prison Reform Trust—it is good to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his place—has had many tributes paid to it to which I add my own for the invaluable work it does in the whole of this area. It is particularly concerned that, without additional safeguards, the proposals will result in an increase in breach and recall to custody, which will drive up the short sentenced prison population. As the Transforming Rehabilitation consultation acknowledges, many people serving short prison sentences have complex and multiple problems, including homelessness, unemployment, drug and alcohol addictions, mental health needs and learning disabilities. This in turn increases the likelihood of breach and recall to custody if sanctions imposed for non-compliance are too onerous or the period of licence or supervision is too long.
	By limiting custody as an option for breach, the amendment should help to reduce the costs of extending statutory supervision to short sentenced prisoners. The risk of breach and recall to custody is acknowledged but not quantified in the impact assessment. It states:
	“There will be court costs associated with breaches of this provision and costs of providing sanctions for these breaches. These will include additional pressure on the prison population arising out of offenders being recalled to custody and further electronic monitoring starts. Initial estimates of these costs are of the order of £25 million per year”.
	In addition, the impact assessment states:
	“There may be an additional burden to the police from extending supervision in the community to offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, as police time will be needed to deal with offenders who fail to comply with the conditions of supervision. Our initial estimate is that this could cost up to £5 million per year”.
	The rise in the number of recalls has been identified by the Ministry of Justice as a key driver of the growth in the prison population over the past two decades. The recall population has grown rapidly since 1993, increasing by more than 55 times. The recall population increased by 5,300 between 1993 and 2012. Growth in the recall population began in 1999, reflecting the change to the law in 1998 which extended executive recall to medium-term sentences—12 months to less than four years.
	There is a significant risk that extending recall to custody as an option for breach of the new supervision requirements for short sentenced prisoners could have
	a similar impact on the short sentenced prison population. This would be counterproductive to the rehabilitative aims of the proposal, given the poor record of prison at reducing reoffending, particularly by short sentenced prisoners. Reoffending by offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison is estimated to cost the economy up to £10 billion annually and 57.6% of prisoners sentenced to 12 months or less reoffend within one year of release. For those who have served more than 11 previous custodial sentences, the rate of reoffending rises to 68%, which is a horrific figure. By contrast, community sentences for 18 to 24 year olds outperform prison sentences by 12.8 percentage points in reducing reoffending. Even when offenders of all ages are closely matched in terms of criminal history, offence type and other significant characteristics, the performance gap remains a robust 8%.
	In the summary of responses to the Transforming Rehabilitation consultation the Government acknowledge that “many” respondents suggested that return to custody should,
	“only be available as a final option after other sanctions had failed, rather than an automatic response in every case”.
	The Government then state:
	“The conditions attached to mandatory supervision will be geared towards rehabilitation rather than punishment, with discretion for providers to identify the activities that should be carried out. We propose to adopt a range of sanctions to address non-compliance with supervision, only recalling offenders to custody as a final measure”.
	That is partly reassuring and I was rather more reassured after the meeting we had yesterday on these and other issues. However, despite these assurances, very little provision is made in the proposed legislation to ensure that custody will be imposed as a last resort in response to breach of the supervision requirements. Subsection (4) of new Section 256AC sets out the sanctions available to the court where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the offender has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement during the supervision period. These include committal to prison for a period not exceeding 14 days, a fine and a supervision default order imposing either an unpaid work requirement or a curfew requirement. There is nothing in the legislation which guarantees that custody will be imposed only as a final measure. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us further on these points.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, as regards the practicalities of this issue, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, it is important to provide greater flexibility to deal with breaches. Many of the offenders whom the Bill is intended to help to go straight have deep problems which are often associated with drugs. It would be a huge achievement if these offenders were able to keep out of trouble for part of the 12-month period. Sending them into custody would be most unfortunate and would fail to give them the further opportunity they may need. Support can be much more helpful in these circumstances than something that is more in the nature of a sanction. Sanctions are important in appropriate cases, but other approaches are sometimes more constructive.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in supporting the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which would help considerably. The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove the capacity to order a person in breach to be committed to prison. She said that there was no provision in the Bill for this measure to be used as a last resort. That is the substance of my amendments in the next group. It may be convenient for me to speak to those amendments now as I am advised that that is possible. It makes sense to do so, as my Amendments 15 and 18 would qualify the provision in new Section 256AC(4)(a) within Clause 3 by providing that a sentence for breach not exceeding 14 days is to be treated as a last resort. I hope that meets the point raised by the noble Baroness. Concerns were expressed about this provision in the consultation document, which the Government acknowledged in their response. However, as yet, their response has not been reflected in the Bill. In my submission, it would make sense to add that qualification, so that, in addition to the provisions in the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right of the court to impose a custodial sentence of up to 14 days would be preserved but it would be stated explicitly in the Bill that it is to be used only as a last resort. That is the sort of declaratory statement to which the noble Lord has referred in earlier debates.
	Is the Minister in a position to indicate the anticipated number as regards the recall provision? I could not find it in the impact assessment. He may not be in a position to do that. However, the noble Baroness rightly referred to the very large increase in this regard—the 55-fold increase—in the past 20 years, most of which, as she rightly says, occurred over the past 14 years. Many of the custodial sentences for breach are imposed on young offenders. Indeed, the Prison Reform Trust has reported substantially on that problem.
	I suspect that there is no great distance between the Minister’s position and that set out in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and in my Amendments 15 and 18. I would welcome the Minister indicating tonight or on Report that those measures will be included in the Bill, with the appropriate wording. The noble Baroness rightly referred to concerns about there being an increased readiness to impose custodial sentences for breach and the cost of this in material terms and, potentially, for offenders and the rehabilitative process. This is not a clear-cut issue and there are clearly arguments on both sides but I have heard concerns expressed by a senior member of the Magistrates’ Association as well as by the noble Baroness and other organisations. Accepting these amendments would go a long way to relieve those concerns while still leaving the court with the ultimate power to impose a custodial sanction as a last resort.

Lord McNally: I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I could cover numbers and costs in the revised impact assessment that I will bring back to the House.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that I certainly do not want to see any benefits gained from a successful rehabilitation programme being dribbled away in the
	costs incurred through dealing with breach. That would be very self-defeating indeed and we must look carefully at that. However, although this is a wonderful Chamber in which to discuss these problems, I sometimes think that we try too hard to be understanding on these issues. In trying to understand all these terribly complex problems with which these people are faced, we do not face up to the fact that they have a choice. As I have said in previous debates, I remember from my childhood young people who experienced in their upbringing many of the problems we talk about in this House but who nevertheless grew up to be honest, decent, honourable members of society. It is a choice.
	In our efforts to understand, I sometimes think that we leave some of these offenders with the belief that the gun is never loaded and that they will never have to face the consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said in earlier debates, some offenders who have been given every chance, shown every understanding and been offered every opportunity still appear before the courts and the magistrates have no alternative. I am as willing to be as woolly a liberal as the next man, but we must also send a very clear message that as a society we do not intend to tolerate anti-social and criminal behaviour without a firm response. If we do not do that, some of the characters we are trying to deal with will never apply themselves to the offers we are making them that we hope will help them put their lives together again.
	I will try to deal with the various amendments, and I accept with alacrity the kind offer of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to reschedule his amendments into this group. I turn first to Amendment 14 from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. Its effect is simple to understand: it would remove the power of the court to commit an offender to custody for failing to comply with the conditions of their top-up supervision. I do understand concerns about the risk of some offenders ending up back in prison for breaching their supervision conditions. We should, however, not lose sight of the fact that far too many of these offenders are already ending up back in custody because they have been released without any conditions and have gone on to reoffend.
	There has to be a balance between the need to ensure there is some grip on offenders under supervision and the need to keep them out of custody and on programmes designed to rehabilitate them. The Bill gets this balance right. First, there is discretion for supervisors to warn offenders before bringing breach action. Secondly, the decision to bring breach action will always be taken by the public sector. It is not in the interests of the public sector to have lots of offenders recalled to custody, which we all know is expensive.
	Then we have the need in the Bill to demonstrate to the court that a breach has occurred and with no reasonable excuse. The court can find there has been no breach or that there was a reasonable explanation for the breach. Only when it is satisfied that there has been a breach can the court decide on the action to take on the breach. I would stress to the noble Baroness that the court may decide that, despite there being a breach, no sanction should be applied to the offender.
	This is because Clause 3 creates new Section 256AC subsection (4) of the 2003 Act, which states that, if there has been a breach, a court “may”—not “must”—impose a sanction. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will make that part of her bedtime reading because she likes to go back and check whether we have got this exactly right.
	Even when the court decides there should be a sanction, it has three alternative options to consider before it decides to commit an offender to custody. If it does commit to custody, the maximum period available to the court is 14 days and this period does not amount to a new sentence, meaning it does not trigger a new period of supervision. As I say, I recognise the concerns about returning people to custody, but we have to put these safeguards in place. We also need to give the courts a range of sanctions that are effective in punishing an offender for breaching conditions and in getting the offender back onto the rehabilitation activities as soon as possible, which is the intention of the supervision period.
	The noble Baroness’s amendment would create an inconsistency with existing powers. This is because the courts can already commit offenders to custody for failure to pay fines or for failure to comply with requirements of community orders. It would, I suggest, create an anomaly that courts were able to commit to custody for lesser sentences but were not able to do so for breach of conditions attached to more serious sentences involving custody. I hope my reassurance on the safeguards and the discretion given to the courts, reassures the noble Baroness so that, at the appropriate time, she will not move her amendment.
	I now turn to Amendments 13, 16 and 17, proposed by my noble friends Lord Marks, Lord Dholakia and Lady Hamwee. Amendment 13 adds a qualification that the sanction for breach of top-up supervision may be imposed if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require a sanction. I hope that I have already made clear that the provision as drafted gives the court an option to decide not to impose a sanction even if a failure to comply with the condition has been demonstrated. This is because the court may impose a sanction for a breach but does not need to. The addition of an “interests of justice test” is unnecessary as the court already has the discretion to decide not to impose a sanction and would do so only if it felt it necessary. In other words, the court already has discretion to decide whether to sanction in the interests of justice.
	Amendment 16 would mean that the court considering a failure of the offender to comply with top-up supervision conditions could recommend to the Secretary of State that the supervision conditions should be varied and suggest ways in which they may be varied. It will remain for the Secretary of State to set licensing conditions and now to set the new top-up supervision conditions. This is a continuation of what happens now with offenders serving longer sentences that already attract release on licence and is the most practical approach to setting conditions of supervision. However, I take my noble friend’s point that there may be circumstances in which a court dealing with a breach can point out that the rehabilitation of the offender might be better addressed by a variation of the Secretary
	of State’s supervision conditions. That seems a sensible and practical suggestion and I will take it away and examine the technicalities of the process and return to this at a later stage.
	Amendment 17 would create a statutory duty on the Sentencing Council to publish guidelines with regard to the court’s powers to deal with failure to comply with supervision conditions. I expect that the independent Sentencing Council will want to provide guidance on the treatment of breaches as it does, for example, on breaches of other orders. I also expect that this will be a key element of the training for the judiciary that the Judicial College will want to provide. As noble Lords will know, the Sentencing Council is an independent body set up and governed by the provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Apart from two specific general matters relating to sentence calculation the Act, does not specify what guidelines the council must produce.
	There is already a power for the Secretary of State or the Court of Appeal to refer to the council any matter that it considers the council should consider issuing guidelines on. It is also open to any other person to make representations to the council about guidelines. I have already said that I would expect that the council will consider guidance for the courts in this area, but my noble friends will also appreciate that I am anxious to maintain the independence of the Sentencing Council. I would not want to encourage every Bill coming before the House to have a provision that required the council to issue guidelines on matters affected by it. I am confident that the council will consider the provisions of this Bill and issue any guidance it considers necessary. I hope that my noble friend will understand that reassurance and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	I turn to Amendments 15 and 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Are those the ones? That is good. I know that it throws everything into confusion if you move them out of order, but I will do my best. As I said in relation to the previous group of amendments, and particularly that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I understand the concerns about the risk of some offenders ending up back in prison for breaching their supervision conditions and I understand why a number of noble Lords have expressed concern about this. The approach taken by these amendments is somewhat different from that taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in the previous group in that rather than remove the option of committal to custody, they insert a provision which requires the committal to be a last resort after all other means of dealing with the breach have been exhausted by the court.
	As I have outlined already, there are a number of steps to reach before the offender will be committed to prison. So there is an option for courts to take no action at all before they consider the four sanctions available to them. There is no hierarchy of sanctions here. It is for the court to decide what the most appropriate sanction is for any particular breach of conditions. Of course, committal to custody is an onerous sanction, but the courts will be aware of this and will take that into account in deciding the appropriate and proportionate response to any breach.
	It is not necessary to set out the concept of the use of committal as a last resort and I would point out that it is not clear exactly what that would mean. I also suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that Amendment 18 is unclear about what amounts to exhausting all other matters. Does it mean that a court must first use the option of imposing no sanction, then a fine for a further breach? It seems simply to be impractical and unduly restrictive on the discretion of the courts. There will also be offenders who will fail to comply with conditions in such a way that will justify committal to custody as a first response. I suggest to the noble Lord that we have some faith in the ability of the judiciary to make reasoned, proportionate and sensible decisions about breach, and I ask him not to move his amendments.
	Having listened to the debate and heard the tenor of my reply, I hope that the House will believe the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made that there is not a great deal of difference between us on this. I hope that I have demonstrated that in the way that we are approaching this matter we are providing the supervisors at every stage of this process with a great deal of discretion. However, we must face up to the reality that there will be those who, by their response to the assistance that they are given, will provoke the only response that we can make—to return them to prison. I hope, however, that it is also clear that we provide this wide discretion. This area is not a matter of punishment but real assistance to those who are willing to receive it. There should be a real commitment by society to make it clear to those who are in this process that we mean it and that we expect them to mean it too. I ask Members to withdraw their amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I should deal with the terrible slur from the Front Bench about the narrowness of my bedtime reading. In fact, my bedtime reading at the moment consists of Caroline Shenton’s book, The Day Parliament Burned Down—a wonderful book that the Minister himself recommended to me.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, first, I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that he will consider Amendment 16 and come back to the House on it at a later stage. I am also grateful for his assurance that he has great confidence that the Sentencing Council will indeed publish the guidelines, and I quite understand his reason for not wishing that to be included in the statute because of the danger of compromising that body’s independence.
	As to the lead amendment in the group, while I completely appreciate the Minister’s position that “may” is discretionary—I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Hamwee, notwithstanding her additional bedside reading, will confirm my view when she has considered the response—I still feel that setting a test for the use of discretion might be helpful. Perhaps the Minister will consider that also. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 13 withdrawn.
	Amendment 14 not moved.
	Amendment 15
	 Tabled by Lord Beecham
	15: Clause 3, page 3, line 39, at beginning insert “subject to subsection (7A),”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I have to reassure the Committee that my bedtime reading does not consist of “50 Shades of McNally”.
	I regret the dismissal of the purpose of my amendment, even if the wording might be improved, because it is important, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in another context and as I reminded your Lordships, that a declaratory phrase be used to clearly indicate that the court should not be quick to impose even a 14-day sentence. It should be implemented only after full consideration of such a measure. The experience of committal for breach for young offenders, to which I have alluded, lends some force to the suggestion that a clear message be sent that such a provision ought not to be lightly adopted. Not all benches would do that in any case, and obviously the court on which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby sits is not cavalier in its approach, and I doubt whether many courts would be. Nevertheless, a declaration of the sort suggested would have been helpful. However, in the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
	Amendment 15 not moved.
	Amendments 16 to 18 not moved.
	Clause 3 agreed.
	Schedule 2 : Supervision default orders: new Schedule 19A to Criminal Justice Act 2003
	Amendment 18A
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	18A*: Schedule 2, page 23, line 27, at end insert—
	“(1A) An offender subject to a supervision order under section 199 (unpaid work requirement) shall not be required to work unpaid for a private sector employer.”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, the amendment relates to new Schedule 19A, which deals with supervision default orders and incorporates new provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The amendment addresses the issue of the unpaid work requirement embodied in new sub-paragraph (2)(a).
	It is a straightforward amendment that might not be necessary. To be frank, I do not know the Government’s current thinking or, for that matter, the present state of the law. However, if unpaid work is to be required it should not be to the profit of a private sector organisation that is in the business of, perfectly legitimately, generating profits. If unpaid work is to be done, it should be for a public body or a social purpose. Obviously it is important that people have the opportunity to develop skills. It is also good that the discipline of work should apply. That is very much part of the rehabilitation process, which is not always easy to achieve. Unpaid work
	might be very helpful in that respect. However, I repeat that it would be wrong if that work were to the financial advantage of a profit-making organisation. One could well envisage placements with voluntary organisations, local authorities or whatever, which would be perfectly reasonable and satisfactory.
	I hope the Minister can assure us about that. Otherwise, we might have to return to this issue on Report because it is an important point. We hear too much of what can only be described as bogus apprenticeships, shelf-stacking and the rest of it under the Work Programme. One does not want to see that kind of work, particularly if it is unpaid, being imported into this agenda. It is desirable that the range of activities that might be encompassed within such a programme benefits the offender and perhaps society. It would be wrong if financial benefit was thereby given to a private business. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I can from the outset assure him, as is clear in all these matters, that the objective is not for any operator to make profit from such work. My understanding of the purpose of the amendment is that it would prevent any offender who is carrying out unpaid work as a sanction for breach of a supervision requirement from doing that unpaid work for any private sector organisation. I would make a number of points in response to the noble Lord.
	First, as noble Lords will know, we intend to open up the delivery of unpaid work, along with other services for offenders in the community, to a wide variety of organisations. This will include the private sector. However, the model for private sector organisations’ delivery of unpaid work would, I should make absolutely clear, not involve the offender working directly for them. The private provider would be responsible for organising the community work and supervising the offender’s progress. Unpaid work is intended to be of benefit to local communities. The private provider would make arrangements with a local authority, community group or charity for the actual work to be carried out. The private provider may also subcontract another organisation to deliver the unpaid work. This may be particularly important for women offenders or offenders with particular needs, such as learning disability. In these cases a smaller organisation within the community with the relevant expertise is much better placed to arrange the unpaid work.
	However, the amendment might prevent private providers even from making arrangements with other bodies to deliver unpaid work. Consider the case of a private provider with responsibility for supervising offenders carrying out unpaid work and that wants to make arrangements for placements with a local charity or community group. The amendment could prevent the private provider from doing so, although I am sure that this was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in tabling the amendment.
	Unpaid work can fulfil a number of purposes. As part of a community order or suspended sentence it provides a credible punishment, but it can also help offenders to learn new skills or disciplines of work. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised this important issue. Too often offenders are looked at in a particular
	way, but some lack the basic ability to turn up at a given time to serve a particular number of hours. We need to help develop these basic skills and mindsets.
	Unpaid work is also reparative, allowing offenders to pay back the harm done by their crimes to the wider community. This is equally true of unpaid work carried out under supervision default orders. It is a sanction for the breach, but this is not to say that it cannot also support the offender’s rehabilitation, or allow them to put something back into the community they have harmed.
	My point here is that unpaid work needs to be meaningful, whether it is carried out as part of a community order or as a sanction for the breach of supervision requirements. Even if it is imposed as a sanction for a breach, the work needs to be of sufficient quality. This remains true whether the provider is a private sector organisation, a charity or the public sector. For this reason I do not believe this amendment’s singling out of private sector organisations to be the right approach. The key issue is ensuring that whoever delivers unpaid work does so to the appropriate standard. We will ensure that our new arrangements deliver this. For these reasons I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I cannot say that I am terribly happy with the noble Lord’s response. It seems to me that there is almost a moral issue here about what is in effect the exploitation of unpaid labour. There is already some concern about the degree to which this now forms part of the process of imprisonment. Bringing in unpaid work has a potential impact on competitor organisations that do not have the advantage of cheap labour, or as in this case unpaid labour. If private sector employers are to be engaged in the process of assisting rehabilitation by providing work—and there is no reason why they should not be—it is incumbent on them to pay for that labour. There is no reason why they should not pay at least the minimum wage. It seems wrong that they should benefit from this process.
	I regret the Minister’s response. I invite him to think again about this, as it is not satisfactory. Otherwise we might have to return to it on Report, because it strikes me as a wholly inappropriate response. There are many opportunities outside unpaid work in the private sector that would encourage the rehabilitation that we all want to see. The Government should rethink their position on this issue.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify this. The noble Lord’s point about paying someone who is caught up in one of these arrangements or rehabilitation schemes is a slightly separate one. I emphasise that the amendment as tabled would prevent the private sector from providing any kind of service as part of the rehabilitation process. I have made the point, which I wish to underline, that the private sector organisation is there not to make any profit. As I have said, the person actually performing this particular arrangement within the community would be doing so
	as part of their rehabilitation. The issue about whether that person should be paid or unpaid is a slightly separate matter.
	As the noble Lord has said, we will come back to this. For the benefit of the Committee I would like to clarify that many offenders are currently subject to unpaid work. Currently, around 60,000 offenders have successfully completed community payback sentences, for example. That is 7 million hours of work on projects that directly benefit local communities. To be clear, the intention is that any unpaid work is of benefit to the community and to the individual as part of their rehabilitation process. The underlying objective is not for any provider, whether private or otherwise, to make a profit from that arrangement.

Lord Beecham: I am grateful for the noble Lord’s most recent remarks, although the points that he made did not really come across when he previously addressed the matter. There is perhaps not the great difference between us that I had perceived. However, it would be better, if the noble Lord agrees, to go back and look at how the Bill might be worded to deal with this situation, which I now apprehend does not really divide us.
	I am well aware of community payback schemes, and I see them in my own ward. They are very valuable and seem to me to be the right approach, although not necessarily in exactly the same form. I sense that really we agree about the notion of people carrying out work for a profit-making organisation on a profit-making project, in which case perhaps the noble Lord would look again at the amendment and see whether we can come up with something on which we can agree. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 18A withdrawn.
	Schedule 2 agreed.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.28 pm.

Burma
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress being made in Burma to end ethnic tensions and to secure democracy.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, just over a year ago on 21 June, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. There was an understandable sense of euphoria and a sense of “problem solved”. Daw Suu now sits in the Burmese Parliament rather than under house arrest. Hundreds of political prisoners have been released and ceasefires have been agreed with most of the country’s ethnic groups. Space for media, civil society and political actors has increased significantly, and in two years’ time Burma will have elections. Sanctions have been lifted, and Burma’s President, Thein Sein, is travelling the world, feted by world leaders. Only this week the BBC World Service became the first international
	media organisation to deliver news on a mobile platform in Burma, where it has some 8.4 million listeners. Does this not imply that the problem is solved? Is it not time to move on and focus on the world’s other problems?
	During a recent visit to Burma it became clear to me that the euphoria is premature, misplaced and profoundly dangerous, a point I made at Question Time earlier today. During that visit, Daw Suu told me—I shall quote her exact words—that some countries are,
	“going overboard with optimism, making the government think that it is getting everything right”.
	She said that we must be less euphoric and more realistic, and that nations such as ours must get their response right. This should include a rather better and sympathetic understanding of the constraints which are still being placed upon Daw Suu herself.
	To explore those issues, I tabled today’s Oral Question and this Question for Short Debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who are participating tonight. The focus is on ethnic tensions and the limitations of recent developments. The immediacy of those challenges was underlined by the anti-Muslim violence last week in Lashio in Shan state, which also involved attacks on journalists trying to document what occurred. Mosques, schools and shops had been burnt down, and violence took place in more than 18 townships hundreds of kilometres apart from one another.
	As I saw during my visit, partly facilitated by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and from its reports and those of Human Rights Watch, if the challenges posed by ethnic violence are not addressed, they have the capacity to derail Burma’s evolution from military dictatorship into a plural, federal democracy. I met representatives of the Rohingya and the Kachin, whose home states are the two of the bloodiest theatres of ethnic violence. Over the past year, some 192 people have been killed and 140,000 displaced in Arakan state.
	The plight of the Muslim Rohingya people is well documented, most recently by Human Rights Watch in its chilling 150-page report, All You Can Do is Pray. It details mass graves from violence that swept Arakan state in June and October last year. At a meeting on 21 May, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Burma considered that report, along with the first-hand account of Rushanara Ali, the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow, who had recently been in Arakan state.
	The Rohingya are among the most persecuted and marginalised people in the world, and they are now facing an intensified campaign of ethnic cleansing. This week, Channel 4 highlighted the plight of thousands of displaced Rohingya who have been forced to flee to Thailand, where they are held in deplorable conditions in detention centres. When the Minister comes to reply, I would be grateful if she could tell us what representations have been made specifically arising out of that report by Channel 4.
	I first raised the plight of the Rohingya in your Lordships’ House on 17 July 2006, when I urged the Government to co-ordinate an approach to the United Nations, and I asked that that should be done particularly with Islamic countries to raise the plight of the Rohingya and the deplorable conditions in the refugee camps.
	They are the perfect breeding ground for nurturing a generation of alienated and hostile jihadists. I have repeatedly urged the Government to take action: five parliamentary interventions in 2010, twice more in 2011, again in 2012—and on 28 February this year, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, whether she would,
	“confirm that since 2012, around 5,000 Rohingya Muslim people have been murdered and that many thousands have disappeared”.—[ Official Report , 28/2/13; col. 1157.]
	I also urged her to mediate a visit by the United Nations special rapporteur on religious liberty to the Arakan state. She and I agreed that the Rohingya are living in a system of 21st century apartheid with their citizenship rights having been formally stripped from the constitution. The years, the months and the weeks have passed by, but there has been very little sense of urgency among or a coherent, determined response from the international community.
	Six weeks ago, through five further Parliamentary Questions, I again raised the conditions in the camps. I asked about the core issue, the question of the Rohingya claim to citizenship. The Government of Burma need to repeal the 1982 citizenship laws which stripped the Rohingya of their citizenship, rendering them stateless. They need to introduce a new citizenship law in line with international norms. They should also be challenged for trying to impose a two child policy on the Rohingya, which in the past seven days Daw Suu has described as, “illegal and against human rights”. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government would be willing to encourage the establishment of two independent inquiries: one through the United Nations to investigate the violence in Arakan state last year and to assess whether crimes against humanity have been committed, a phrase that was used in your Lordships’ Chamber earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock; and the other perhaps consisting of independent academics and other experts to assess the historical basis for the claims of the Rohingya in order fully and conclusively to address the claims of the Government of Burma and many in Burmese society that the Rohingya are, as they put it, illegal Bengali immigrants. Years of misinformation about the Rohingya in Burma need to be countered with a full, comprehensive and independent assessment of the history and the facts, if the suffering of the Rohingyas is ever to end.
	Similarly, as part of a serious peace process, Thein Sein’s Government must end the Burmese army’s offensive against the Kachin people. While it is to be welcomed that the Government of Burma have agreed ceasefires with many of the ethnic armed groups, over the past two years they have inflicted a very serious offensive against the Kachin people in north Burma. Last week, Ban Ki-Moon welcomed the agreement reached between the Government of Myanmar and the Kachin Independence Organisation, calling it a first step towards reconciliation in the country. Perhaps the Minister can share with us the details of the seven-point agreement and her assessment of its durability.
	Over the past 18 months, a number of fragile preliminary ceasefires have been agreed. However, there is a need not only for a ceasefire, but for a peace process. As one Karen put it, “A ceasefire is simply pressing the pause button, and we need to find a way to press the stop button”. That can be achieved only
	through a peace process that involves a meaningful political dialogue with the ethnic nationalities to find a political solution to decades of war.
	The military campaign which began two years ago has led to the displacement of 100,000 Kachin civilians, at least 200 villages being burnt to the ground, and 66 churches destroyed. Grave human rights violations have included rape, torture and killings. A recent report by Christian Solidarity Worldwide detailed the story of one Kachin who had been jailed for a year. During his interrogation, he was hung upside down for a day and a night, beaten severely, mutilated with hot knives, and a grenade was shoved into his mouth, his torturers threatening to pull the pin. One Kachin has said that, “The impact of the war this time has been enormous. Many have lost land, plantations, livelihoods ... people are living in the middle of nowhere, hopeless, desperate, suffering”. What are the Government doing to encourage the Government of Burma to develop a serious political dialogue with the ethnic minorities? Those nationalities comprise 40% of the population, inhabit 60% of the land, and live predominantly along the country’s borders in some of the most resource-rich areas that lie along the major trade routes. It is therefore in Burma’s own interests, and those of the international community, to see decades of war end and peace and stability established. That can be achieved only through real political dialogue. So far, the changes on the ground in Burma, welcome though they are, amount primarily to a change of atmosphere rather than a change of system.
	I want to end by returning to the recent and shocking rise in religious intolerance, hatred and violence. During my recent visit, I visited a Muslim community in a village called Ayela, two miles from Naypyidaw, which is the new capital. I arrived just three days after a large mob of Buddhists from another area had attacked the village. In this particular case no one was injured or killed, but only because they were able to escape. In many other places, notably Meiktila and Oakkan, there has been appalling loss of life. The tragedy is that, previously, the Buddhists and Muslims had lived together for 200 years. However, someone said to me, “We don’t even dare greet each other in the street”. There are various theories about why this wave of anti-Muslim violence has erupted. I would be interested to know what role the Minister thinks that the militant group known as “969” has played.
	I end by saying this. I have made three earlier visits to Burma, the first 15 years ago, illegally into Karen state. I am honorary president of the charity, Karenaid. That I can now visit legally and meet ethnic leaders and democracy activists is a small but welcome harbinger of change. However, the international community has a responsibility to do all it can to help in the effort to bring about fundamental change.

Lord Patten: My Lords, Burma is at grave risk of joining the list of permanent world trouble spots as a failing state. On present trends, it is sinking fast into a terrible cesspit of racial violence and ethnic cleansing, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just portrayed so
	graphically; he knows much more about it than I do. I believe that Burma desperately needs three things. First, it needs enlightened and outspoken healing democratic leadership; secondly, it needs a miraculous outbreak—I believe in miracles—of religious understanding and human decency between Buddhist, Muslim and Christian alike; and, thirdly, its people need to recognise that unless they bring about stability, they will fail to hoist themselves out of poverty through economic development, something that is achievable within a generation.
	On the first point, with hindsight it seems much easier in Burma, as elsewhere, to foment change out of a repressive regime than to embed the further necessary changes thereafter. Remember the soundbite delights of the so-called Arab spring a couple of years back. Tell that to the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Iraq or Iran alike. Where are the outright and immediate appeals to human decency from the heroines and heroes of recent political change in Burma? They are sadly but understandably muted so far.
	Secondly, there is no evidence at all of an outbreak of religious understanding in the face of Burmese, Burman and Buddhist persecution of Muslims and Christians, increasingly led—surprisingly, as they are religious—by some gung-ho Saffron Revolutionary Monks, such as the Venerable Wirathu, who said after last week’s burnings and killings, which spread on 29 and 30 May to the north-eastern town of Lashio, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already referred:
	“The Rohingya there burned down their own houses so that they could live easily in the refugee camps”.
	He then went on to say that the burnings and killings by Buddhist mobs in Meiktila was “forgivable”. The story is similar for the poor Baptists and others in Kachin, who look as though they will face the fate of the Kurds in ever more repressive Turkey, as we have seen in recent days in that country. To an outsider like me, it looks as if the lessons of these recent changes in Burma simply express that it is best not to be a minority of any kind at all. The world community and the Minister need to show a lead in this.
	Thirdly, one can only hope that economic change can ride to the rescue as the majority of hard-working, decent Burmese of all religions realise that this increasing endemic violence will prevent their experiencing the rapid advances out of poverty that an Indonesia or a Thailand managed so quickly in a couple of decades. The Burmese could grow their economy by four or five times over the next 25 years with all the inward investment that is needed to build a new deep-water port at Dawei or roads into Thailand. It is a country that I read may soon experience the delights of having a Coca-Cola bottling plant, but it will be among pitiful poverty, with hardly an ATM in sight and hardly any mobile phones or the other things that increasingly power democracy through the messages that they send.
	Maybe, in the end, the realisation that they can lift themselves out of poverty will produce that national miracle where there is, as yet, neither much uplifting political leadership or an outbreak of human decency among majority and minority groups. It could well be the engine of social cohesion and national salvation for Burma—something I never thought I would say of economic growth.

Baroness Nye: My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the Burma Campaign UK and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for arranging this timely debate and for his tour de force on the situation in Burma now.
	As the recent McKinsey Global Institute report says, Burma is an unusual country in that it,
	“remains an underdeveloped agrarian economy in the heart of the world’s fastest growing regional economy ... one of the few remaining largely untapped markets in the world”.
	It has many potential drivers of growth and areas that foreign investors can target, but foreign investment will succeed only if there is a politically stable environment in which to do business. That means that human rights cannot be ignored in the rush to be in at the beginning of an expanding economy.
	Following some initial positive steps by the Burmese Government in April 2012, the EU decided to suspend economic sanctions, which had gradually been introduced over the past 20 years. However, the EU specified four human rights benchmarks that would need to be met as a way of marking progress before it would consider lifting sanctions entirely. But two months ago the EU did lift sanctions entirely, seemingly without any regard to those benchmarks at all, as most human rights organisations report that the situation has deteriorated. I hope the Minister will agree tonight to publish any review of the benchmarks the Government have conducted which showed that they had been met, and explain why the Government did not support proportionality or a gradual suspension as and when those criteria had been met.
	Take the issue of political prisoners, which is being kept under constant review by the Burma Campaign UK. The release of political prisoners has been used repeatedly by President Thein Sein to coincide with a foreign visit to show that reform is ongoing. None of those released prisoners has received any kind of medical care, compensation or acknowledgement that they should not have been in jail in the first place. They still have criminal records with their sentences suspended and no full pardons, not the unconditional release referred to in the EU benchmark statement. Those released are still subject to restrictions on their freedom, including on travel and future political activity. The repressive laws that sent them to jail in the first place are still in place so, as the already incarcerated are released, more are arrested. The UN special rapporteur, after his visit in February, highlighted not only the ongoing detention of political prisoners but the increasing reports of the use of torture.
	The Burmese Government have set up a review committee but questions remain about its composition, mandate, timing and lack of independent international experts. Will the Minister update us on whether the Government have confidence that this committee will finally resolve the issue of political prisoners in Burma? I fear the families of the remaining and the newly arrested political prisoners would beg to differ.
	The second benchmark was to end conflict but throughout last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the conflict in Kachin deteriorated, with the Burmese army using air strikes on civilians and rape
	and sexual violence as weapons of terror. With the signing of the seven-point agreement in recent days, there appears to be the basis of a genuine process of reconciliation in Kachin, which is to be welcomed. However, those 75,000 displaced people in Kachin still urgently need humanitarian assistance, which brings us to the third benchmark.
	Agencies are still reporting difficulties in gaining access to the IDP camps in Rakhine, and to Kachin and Shan. The situation will get worse for the people in those camps in the low-lying areas during the approaching rainy season. However, as noble Lords have said, the most disturbing development last year was the violence against the Muslim and Rohingya communities. Indeed, on the very day that sanctions were lifted due to the satisfactory progress that the EU decided had been made, Human Rights Watch issued a damning report which documented crimes against humanity and the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims.
	After the violence in Rahkine, the President called for the “illegal Rohingya” to be sent to third countries and transferred civilian power to the military in a state of emergency that was extended last month. The recent news that the 1994 ban on Rohingya having more than two children is being enforced again is a clear violation of their human rights. Does the Minister accept the evidence of the Human Rights Watch report that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity are happening in Burma?
	Concentrating on the economic opportunities that Burma offers, without parallel regard to human rights issues, means that progress on reform can stall. The exit of Vodafone from bidding to become Burma’s first foreign mobile phone company after seeing the final licence conditions shows the perils of companies trying to do business before the country relaxes its controls on access to information and freedom of expression.
	In a recent debate on Europe in this House the Minister applauded,
	“the intelligent use of sanctions, which in the case of Burma have been attributed as one of the most effective levers in encouraging the regime to implement democratic change”.—[Official Report, 31/1/13; col. 1695.]
	I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister about what changed her and the Government’s mind about the effectiveness of those levers? As an editorial in the Daily Telegraph—not a newspaper I usually agree with—said, on the day that sanctions were lifted:
	“Mr Hague and his EU colleagues have now cast aside all their sticks, leaving themselves with no option but to rely on the regime’s goodwill”.
	In the absence of those sanctions, what is the policy of the British Government towards the achievement of human rights in Burma?

Lord Williams of Baglan: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating it and also for his long-standing interest in human rights in Burma. I first visited Burma in 1988, a few months after the suppression of the student revolt, which left many thousands of students killed. Brave students—braver than me—whom I met faced subsequent harassment and in many cases imprisonment. I worked then for Amnesty International.
	I have visited Burma many times since, most recently in 2008, following Cyclone Nargis, which ravished the country and claimed more than 140,000 lives. Terrible though that tragedy was, it may well have been a turning point in modern Burmese history, forcing a reluctant and harsh regime to recognise that it could not cope with the scale of the disaster.
	When I last visited, 12 months ago, I found a county much changed, despite the continuing human rights violations that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have addressed this evening. That transformation is, I believe, the most significant in Southeast Asia since the ousting of President Suharto of Indonesia in 1998. Over the past 18 months, we have seen significant progress, although it remains one of the poorest countries in the region and one with a human rights record which, to say the least, needs to be addressed and improved greatly. There has been dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein. The sweeping victories of the opposition National League for Democracy in by-elections last April were described by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as,
	“a dramatic demonstration of popular will”.
	Two weeks ago, in the White House, President Obama received President Thein Sein. As President Obama recognised, the scale of the challenge facing Burma, in a difficult transition to more representative governance, is enormous. The country and its Government need all the international assistance, as well as pressure, that they can receive.
	I commend our Government for the support that they have given to Myanmar and its people. In that regard, I believe that Prime Minister Cameron’s visit in 2012 was critically important and I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has any news of a return visit by President Thein Sein, when many of the issues that have been brought up here this evening could be addressed. I commend the Government for what they are doing; in particular, DfID’s support in assisting the process of ethnic reconciliation. Can the noble Baroness also say more in that regard? I believe that the UK can, and should, play an important role and am especially pleased by the current visit of the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards. I hope that that visit will lead soon to the appointment of a British military attaché in Yangon. Any news on that would be welcome. The Burmese Government have agreed to many ceasefires—or, more appropriately, cessation of hostilities—over the years but they lack the will and the capability to transform those tenuous agreements into lasting political accords.
	Several days ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the Government and the Kachin Independence Organisation agreed a seven-point peace pact. For the first time, in a striking development, the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy, Mr Vijay Nambiar, was present during that meeting. I hope that that is perhaps an indication of a greater involvement by the UN in helping Burma in this difficult task of ethnic reconciliation. The most difficult aspect of that at the moment, as has been rightly addressed, is the situation affecting the Muslim population of Rakhine state. The UK must follow that situation closely, and guard against further substantial breaches of human rights,
	but I believe that, equally and at the same time, we must tread a difficult path and support Burma’s leadership —Aung San Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein—in the very difficult path along which they are trying to advance their country.

Baroness Jenkin of Kennington: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this important debate and pay tribute to his active interest in, and commitment to, the cause of freedom and human rights around the world, including in Burma.
	I make no claim to any expertise on this specific subject, but I declare an interest for four reasons. First, I hope to visit Burma next month with the All-Party Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health—unless of course my visa is refused as a result of my contribution to this debate. Secondly, I co-chaired the Conservative Friends of International Development. I recognise that Burma is a major recipient of British aid but it is in need of even more humanitarian assistance. Thirdly, I am contributing to this debate having met and talked to Benedict Rogers, deputy chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and a well known Burma specialist, who has visited Burma many times, most recently with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in March. Fourthly, last summer I put my name to a letter to the Daily Telegraph, along with noble Lords from across the Chamber, expressing concern about the desperate plight of the Rohingya people. We called for emergency aid to all the victims of violence in Rakhine state, pressure on Bangladesh to allow refugees fleeing persecution across its borders, pressure on the Government of Burma to stop the violence, a serious effort to revise, or repeal, the 1982 citizenship law, which stripped the Rohingyas of citizenship, and a new citizenship law in line with international human rights norms. I repeat those calls today.
	I echo many of the points already raised in this debate. Although it is indeed absolutely right to recognise the extraordinary and welcome changes taking place in Burma, to encourage further reform and to open a hand of friendship to the people of Burma as the country opens up and moves towards freedom, it is also essential that we recognise that Burma is just at the very beginning of change, that the early signs of increasing freedom are fragile and that there are many grave challenges still to be addressed.
	In the time available, I wish to focus my remarks on a couple of these challenges. First, as others have already noted in depth, the recent anti-Muslim violence is of serious concern. Clearly, there are attitudes within parts of Burmese society that are deeply troubling and need to be addressed through public education and inter-religious dialogue. Such efforts must be encouraged at grass-roots levels, as well as at a national level. However, more urgently, it must be a priority for the international community to urge the President and his Government to end the climate of impunity and to ensure that the security forces act swiftly, effectively and fairly to prevent violence, stop violence when it is occurring, protect vulnerable communities and bring the perpetrators of hatred and violence to justice. Can my noble friend give her assessment of the Burmese
	Government’s response to these crises and say what concrete steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to address these serious concerns with the Burmese Government?
	Secondly, I am very pleased that Britain has continued to increase aid to Burma and has been the largest single donor to the country. That is a record to be proud of. I am also pleased that, as part of our aid to Burma, Britain has provided humanitarian assistance to displaced people within the country and along the borders. However, as my noble friend will know, there are two areas which are in particular need of further and urgent assistance: Kachin state and Rakhine state. The war in Kachin state has displaced at least 100,000 people and left more than 200 villages destroyed. In Rakhine state, more than 130,000 people, mainly Rohingyas, have been displaced and are living in camps which the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, described six months ago as “dire”. Will my noble friend tell the House what efforts Her Majesty’s Government are making to secure unrestricted access for international humanitarian aid to all displaced peoples in Kachin and Rakhine states, including those outside government-controlled territory, and what contribution Britain is making to the needs of displaced people in these areas?
	I wish to end with one of the most serious challenges in Burma and an issue that should be at the centre of Her Majesty’s Government’s focus on the country, given that it is a personal priority of the Foreign Secretary: sexual violence and rape as a weapon of war. Over the past decade, hundreds of cases of rape and sexual violence have been documented by women’s organisations in six different states. Of the cases of rape that have been documented, almost half are women who were raped and also killed. In Kachin state, many women have been raped during the conflict over the past two years. According to an article in the Guardian in February, Muslim Rohingya women, including teenagers, were raped. Will my noble friend tell the House what plans the Government have to ensure that Burma is included in the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative?

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton on his tireless work for oppressed people and his commitment to obtain first-hand evidence, enabling him to introduce this debate with characteristic authority, knowledge and concern. I will focus on my experience of recent visits to the Shan and Kachin peoples and meetings with representatives of the Rohingya, Karen and Karenni ethnic nationals. Of course I also welcome reforms, including the freedom of the iconic democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the release of several hundred political prisoners, although hundreds more remain in prison. But all ethnic national peoples share fears that reforms may be used by the Burmese Government to further their own agenda, including more exploitation of their resource-rich lands. When I was in Shan state with my NGO, Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, or HART, one of the Shan leaders said:
	“When the lights went on in Rangoon, all the world rushed to Rangoon; no-one stopped to see us in the darkness”.
	The UN Human Rights Council resolution on Burma passed in March highlighted many aspects of the darkness, including,
	“arbitrary detention, forced displacement, land confiscations, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as violations of international humanitarian law”.
	These violations of human rights and military offensives against civilians have forced hundreds of thousands of ethnic nationals to flee their homes to live in destitution as IDPs or into exile in neighbouring lands. I appreciate the visit by Minister Hugo Swire to the Rohingya people in Rakhine state but, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Alton and other noble Lords, their plight remains dire with an increase in anti-Muslim propaganda, attacks on communities and the destruction of mosques, homes and businesses. The condition of those who have had to flee into camps is desperate, with many dying from lack of medical care or other essentials.
	In Kachin state in June 2011 the Burmese Army broke a 17-year-long ceasefire with military offensives, including aerial bombardment of civilians and widespread violations of human rights such as extra-judicial killings, rape and torture. We in HART visited Kachin state in February and we saw the suffering of the people, 100,000 of whom have had to flee from aerial bombardment and ground defences. We visited some of them living in destitution in makeshift camps along the border with China and we heard gruesome accounts of brutality inflicted on civilians. In Shan state fighting continues in the north and the Burmese Government continue exploitation of this resource-rich land. During our last visit to Shan state we met civilians who had to flee their lands because of military offensives by the Burmese army or expropriation of their land by deals made by the Burmese Government with foreign investors, such as the pipeline being built from India to China which has driven countless Shan civilians off their lands with derisory or no compensation. We met one lady in a camp for Shan IDPs who had lost absolutely everything. All she had left were the ragged clothes she was wearing, and she was one of many.
	Given the gravity of the suffering of these ethnic national peoples, there is widespread concern over the Burmese Government’s refusal to allow access to international aid organisations, a point that has been raised by other noble Lords. Other ethnic national peoples who have signed cease-fire agreements, such as the Karen, emphasise that those ceasefires are used by the Burmese Government to extend roads into their lands, for possible future hostile military activities or to increase the expropriation of their natural resources, such as teak and other forms of timber. Although the Kachin leadership and the Government have resumed talks, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, this is also simply seen as a precursor to a ceasefire and not real peace. The Burmese Government have a sorry record of brokering and breaking ceasefires.
	Following the lifting of EU sanctions, what specific tools, mechanisms and leverage do the EU and the UK have to encourage and pressure the Government of Burma to address these grave concerns of the ethnic national peoples and to establish a genuine lasting peace process leading to a political agreement enshrining
	justice and equality for all peoples of Burma? Finally, what progress is there in encouraging the Government of Burma to sign and ratify the international covenant on civil and political rights, and will the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief visit Burma with an assurance of unhindered access to all parts?
	I conclude by referring back to the words of the Shan leader:
	“When the lights went on in Rangoon, all the world rushed to Rangoon; no-one stopped to see us in the darkness”.
	I hope the Minister’s replies tonight will prove that the UK Government have stopped to visit them in the darkness and will do all in their power to prevail on the Burmese Government to bring them into the light of genuine peace, freedom, justice and equality as citizens of Burma.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, when faced with such expert eye witnesses to the tragic facts on the ground in Burma as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it is hard to know what to add. But for outside observers I suspect the abiding image is the satellite photo from late last year that so clearly showed the destruction in Rakhine state. A picture does indeed speak more than 1,000 words. I will concentrate on the proposed international and domestic actions which could assist in bringing to an end the ethnic and religious intolerance against the Rohingya people. I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on International Religious Freedom.
	At international institutional level in the UN and the OIC there has been much debate around international religious freedom as outlined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, the events in Burma bring sharply into focus the distinction between protecting individuals’ human rights, which is what Article 18 enshrines, and protecting religions—in this case Buddhism—which is not what Article 18 protects. The UN and member states need to show in this situation that they can use soft power, institutional mechanisms and financial pressure to protect the Rohingya Muslim population. I had the privilege of accompanying the Minister on a trip to Srebrenica in 2009. Of course there is a different dynamic for the UN when you are actually physically present as an atrocity such as Srebrenica occurs. But bearing in mind the situation in Syria, I sense that there is a particular need for the international institutions, especially the UN, to show that they can effectively protect a Muslim population like the Rohingyas. Can the Minister tell this House whether there is a danger of extremists influencing Burma’s Muslims from neighbouring nations if the UN fails to act to protect the Rohingya people? Also, could she outline, due to her role in the Department for Communities and Local Government, whether she has received representations from British Muslims on this issue? Nowadays there are very few international issues that do not have a potential domestic dimension.
	Although ethnic and religious issues are not always separable, it is clear from the propaganda of the Buddhist monk Wirathu and the 969 campaign that there is a religious dimension to these atrocities. It is
	sad to note that with the Rohingya people there is almost certainly a racial dimension as well. There is mention made in news reports such as in the
	 Guardian
	in April 2013 that Wirathu’s teachings have large followings on YouTube and Facebook, but does the Minister know if these followings are in Burma as well? I join with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in congratulating the BBC World Service for being the first international news service to broadcast from a mobile platform in Burma where there are now estimated to be 4 million mobile phone subscribers. But highly developed states struggle with the issue of the boundaries of freedom of expression on new technology. How are the Burmese Government coping with this issue and might some simple assistance with monitoring and removing footage have a huge effect and assist long-term peaceful co-existence between Burma’s religious communities?
	I would particularly value my noble friend’s assurance that Her Majesty’s Government will request an urgent visit by the UN special rapporteur on international religious freedom, not just to report on the current violations but to look at how a long-term strategy can be developed so that all Burmese people are respected as equal human beings, enjoy citizenship and live under the rule of law. Perhaps also the UN special rapporteur could be asked to look at the use of new technology in promoting religious hatred. There is much that can be done by the UK Government. Between 2011 and 2015 £187 million of UK taxpayers’ money will be spent on aid, according to DfID’s operational plan for Burma. In that plan there is a section entitled “Alignment to DfID and wider UK Government priorities” and the Minister has been prioritising the work on international religious freedom and Article 18. This alignment section does not mention her priorities and as it is clear that there are violations of Article 18 on the ground in Burma, should this not be reflected in DfID’s plan? DfID support is given not to the Burmese Government but only through United Nations organisations and trusted international and local NGOs. Is Her Majesty’s Government ensuring that the UN and these NGOs which are spending UK aid are funding work that assists the understanding of religious freedom at community level with Burmese citizens?
	No one expects overnight transformation in Burma. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not a miracle worker and mature institutions of a democratic state take decades, even centuries, to form. But I do not believe with all the plaudits the world has given to the Burmese leaders and the aid and the investment that is now flowing in that asking them not to oversee or even assist in the annihilation of certain religious and racial communities is too much to ask.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. This debate takes place at a point where it is hard to make completely clear judgments because the evidence has not, as yet, pointed conclusively in any one direction. I found the latest report by the special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar particularly helpful. I know it is unedited, but it was published on 6 March and is therefore very recent. It is an attempt at a balanced review, occasioned,
	it appears to me, by a wish to give encouragement to former prisoners of conscience and to sustain, and even increase, their remarkable and brave efforts.
	When Aung San Suu Kyi visited our Parliament, the admiration felt for her was evident. The facts that she was no longer a prisoner, she was active in political life in Burma and that she was able to speak and publish very widely were all powerful signs of progress. Her measured optimism was an encouragement and from what I heard of what she said, I conclude that she was not overoptimistic. She is plainly wholly seized of the massive issues in democratic life, the continued violence against opponents of the Government, their military leadership’s actions, the deadly assaults that still continue and the cultural subjugation of minority peoples. In part because of what she had to say and in part because of the changes that we can observe, we have also tended to add qualified encouragement. Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, invited the Government to recognise the progress that has been made, and in a way, he is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Williams, tonight. I know they are both far too wise to believe that things are now okay or may not go into reverse. None the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said this evening, ceasefires, prisoner releases and so on are welcome.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, invites us to ask whether it is reasonable enough for us to look at both sides of this balance sheet rather more acutely and without any euphoria. Uncritical optimism is not a policy. Last September, the President of Burma said that changes are irreversible. Is that true? Eight amnesties have freed about 850 prisoners of conscience, but there are certainly in excess of 250 still in prison, and it is unclear to me why any kind of special committee is needed to oversee the process of their release. Does the Minister know the rationale? How have representations made by the Government about medical help for current and past prisoners or those who are in the revolving door of repeated arrests been received? Do the Government think that the Burmese authorities will ratify CAT and OPCAT and, if so, when? Do the Government regard this, as I would, as a benchmark test for eradicating the torture of detainees and others? How have the Burmese Government reacted to representations that we have made on the impropriety of imprisoning peaceful demonstrators? I know there have been improvements in this area, but there have also been significant lurches backwards.
	Have the Government made representations on illegal land seizures and, if so, with what response? How much progress does the Minister believe has been made by the national planning authority on the pledge that has been made to halve the rate of poverty? My noble friend Lady Nye and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, have illustrated the economic potential, if it were to be grasped. Does the Minister have an estimate, which has been recommended several times in the past by the UN Commission on Human Rights, of when universal education for younger children—their human right, if I can put it that way—might be achieved?
	I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, this evening for her report on her recent visit and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her proposals.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very powerful statement on this. I, too, note with deep apprehension the reports of every kind of vile atrocity suffered by ethnic minorities in Burma. The announcement in the joint statement of work on de-escalation between the authorities and the KIO on 6 February is an important step, and China is to be thanked for the constructive hosting of the talks on Kachin state.
	The crisis in Rakhine state raises the same deep apprehensions. Blame is attributed by both sides to each other. The offer by the UN of an independent investigation is welcome, but removal of the violent assaults and killings in the wider Rohingya community is surely the starting point before there is any prospect of a serious discussion on a federal outcome. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and my noble friend Lady Nye in asking this question—I hope I am not putting words in their mouth. Does the Minister agree that we are witnessing, in the words that they carefully chose to use, ethnic cleansing?
	I appreciate the typically thoughtful statement by Hugo Swire MP, the Minister responsible for Burma. He is right to emphasise that our Government’s action must go beyond lobbying. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, called for a much wider and more active UK role. Policy will, as Mr Swire said, evolve, but I urge a process somewhat faster than evolution, which is a slow process. Let us include active sponsorship of ethnic reconciliation, no impunity and closer co-operation with China on these matters. Their roles, alongside the bravery of the opposition, should be at the forefront of all our involvement. Finally, if progress stalls, will we press for the reinstatement of sanctions?

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for once again calling a timely and important debate. Burma is going through a complex political and economic reform process. It will take time and requires scrutiny, support and guidance from the UK and like-minded partners in the international community to realise the full benefits of what Burma can become. It is not simply a matter of relying on evolution, which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, referred to; it is about going further and using every opportunity to make sure that Burma is heading in the right direction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has visited the country, described horrific incidents, but he noted the progress that is being made. Perhaps the most visible is the growth in freedom of expression, including for NGOs and civil society. People are now able to buy a wide selection of newspapers, and civil society is active. We provide funding to support this, which includes a number of initiatives that strengthen civil society. For example, later this month, we will be hosting prominent former political prisoners from the 88 Generation who are coming to the United Kingdom.
	Moves have been made to bring about an end to the internal conflict that has blighted the country since independence. The Burmese Government have signed ceasefires with eight of the 11 ethnic armed groups. We welcome last week’s potentially significant agreement
	with the Kachin Independence Organisation to begin political dialogue and work to cease hostilities. We continue to support the Government and the representatives of the ethnic groups to reach robust and sustainable peace agreements through a political process. Recently we hosted visits from ethnic leaders and the Burmese Government to share our experiences of peacemaking in Northern Ireland, but I take noble Lords’ points when they say that this has to move beyond peace agreements into real reconciliation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, asked specifically about political prisoners. There have been releases of large numbers of political prisoners, the establishment of a mechanism to review political prisoner cases and, for the first time in many years, the International Committee of the Red Cross now has access to Burma’s jails. The Foreign Secretary pressed the Burmese Foreign Minister in February to release all political prisoners. We note President Thein Sein’s statement on 4 June that all prisoners of conscience will be released soon. This is an optimistic statement and one that we will continue to monitor closely to ensure that progress is made. We particularly welcome his clear commitment not to enforce Section 401, under which released political prisoners can be returned to jail to serve the remainder of their original sentence. We have always emphasised that releases of political prisoners should be unconditional and we are pleased that the Burmese Government have publicly confirmed that they share that view. We will also continue to follow up on cases of reported abuse in Burma’s jails and we raise individual cases of political prisoners when we have the opportunity.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, also raised the two-child policy. Aung San Suu Kyi has said that any enforcement of a two-child policy would be discriminatory and not in line with the upholding of human rights in Burma. The British embassy in Rangoon is raising our serious concerns with Burmese Government Ministers citing the human rights obligations to which the Burmese Government have signed up. A presidential spokesman said earlier this week that the central government did not announce the Rohingya two-child policy—this was something that was being done on a local level and they would be looking into it.
	In relation to political reform, Aung San Suu Kyi has, of course, now taken a seat in Burma’s Parliament. It was an amazing moment when we all welcomed her at the Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. She is now building alliances across the political spectrum to drive reform forward. We welcome the announcement on 20 March that the Burmese Parliament will establish a committee to review the constitution. This is a crucial next phase in underpinning the wider political reforms. We are funding work to strengthen the capacity of the Burmese Parliament, an institution vital for deepening democratic politics. Over the past six months we have hosted Burmese parliamentarians from the Public Accounts Committee and the Bills Committee.
	The issue of sanctions was raised by a number of noble Lords. I think I raised this matter in some detail in an Answer to noble Lords at Oral Questions earlier today. In the context of the ongoing political transition, on 22 April the EU lifted all sanctions on Burma
	except for the arms embargo which remains in place. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the time that our work in Burma is not remotely finished. The judgment of the UK and of all EU member states supported by Aung San Suu Kyi is that Burma’s remaining challenges are now best dealt with not through sanctions but through deeper engagement.
	We will continue to be a constructive, supportive and critical partner to Burma, committed to supporting the reform efforts that have started. Our vision is for Burma to become a prosperous, stable, peaceful and more democratic country with respect for human rights and the dignity of all people. Without that respect for all people, this vision of Burma will not become a reality. Guided by these principles we remain concerned by a number of issues that the Government of Burma must address in order to sustain the momentum of the reform process.
	Most specifically there is the issue of Rakhine state and the human rights abuses there, which were referred to by a number of noble Lords. We are extremely concerned by allegations of these abuses during the violence last year which was documented by Human Rights Watch and the UN special rapporteur. The Rakhine commission set up to investigate the causes of last year’s violence emphasised the importance of ensuring accountability and the president has endorsed this but these commitments now need to be translated into action. We continue to press the Burmese Government to bring to justice all those accused of having instigated, incited or carried out violence in Rakhine state. This accountability needs to be delivered in a way that is transparent, credible and in line with international standards. The EU-sponsored resolution at the March 2013 UN Human Rights Council mandated the special rapporteur to continue to report on human rights in Burma for another year. It drew specific attention to the need for accountability. OHCHR staff are currently on the ground in Rakhine state monitoring the human rights situation and we are lobbying the Burmese Government to open a country office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with a strong mandate which allows it to monitor the human rights situation in all parts of the country.
	On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, on whether ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity took place in Rakhine in 2012, further independent investigative work would be required for an informed assessment as to whether ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed.
	My noble friend Lady Jenkin raised the issue of humanitarian aid and assistance. On humanitarian assistance, we have continued to call for unhindered access to conflict-affected areas at every opportunity. I raised this with Aung Min, the Minister for the President’s Office, when he visited the UK on 15 April. The Minister of State for Asia, Hugo Swire, raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, when they met last week the need for improved humanitarian aid co-ordination. Ministers announced a further £4.4 million in aid to Rakhine on 15 May and we are giving £3.5 million to Kachin and have given £600,000 to support the Shan
	Women’s Action Network in Shan state. Our total commitment over the four years up to 2015 will amount to £187 million.
	The issue of Rohingya citizenship was raised by a number of noble Lords. This remains fundamental to resolving their statelessness. We have consistently said that there needs to a sustainable solution to citizenship for the Rohingya community, consistent with ensuring their human rights. I pressed senior Burmese Ministers on this in April and will continue to make the point. The Rohingya community, most of whom have lived in Burma for many generations, should be entitled to citizenship in line with Burma’s current legal framework. Any further independent work into the origins of the Rohingya community could have value on the question of their citizenship. We are in close contact with the UN which is reviewing the 1982 citizenship law to assess whether it is consistent with international treaties to which Burma is a signatory. Noble Lords will be familiar with the arguments that are made against the granting of citizenship in relation to the length of stay in a country, the look apparently of the people and the minority religious background. The irony of that argument was lost in light of the fact that they were discussing the matter with me.
	The wider violence against religious minorities, which has affected other parts of Burma, is also a serious concern. Attacks against the Muslim community in Meiktila and other areas have led to deaths and the destruction of mosques, madrassahs, businesses and homes. The violence in Shan state last week has shown that there is still much more to do to prevent further outbreaks. As is the case with the violence in Rakhine state, the Burmese Government must ensure, in line with statements made by the president, that those guilty of acts of violence are held accountable. We are this week sending out a mission to assess what help is needed to improve the capacity of the police force so that it can sensitively and effectively deal with civil unrest and better protect minority communities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of an impartial investigation. An international inquiry would be most effective if it had the support of all parties. The issue of Rakhine is under discussion at the moment at the current Human Rights Council and we are engaging with other countries as to whether this is something we could take forward. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the two-child policy. I think I dealt with that matter earlier. He also raised the issue of the militant group 969. There is evidence to show that the violence was organised. I do not have the information to attribute it to one group at this stage. The noble Lord referred to the Channel 4 report asking what representations we had made, I think, to the Thai Government. We have lobbied them and asked them to ensure that they adhere to international protocols governing the treatment of refugees. We have also asked them to ensure that full access to detained Rohingya refugees is given to international migration organisations and the UN. I am more familiar with the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh who I visited on my last visit.
	My noble friend Lord Patten raised the issue of trade. I agree with him. We have put responsible investment at the heart of our future commercial relationship with Burma. We want to encourage investment that
	will benefit local communities and respect the local environment. He is right that if we give some people a stake in what could be a more prosperous future for all it could help with some of these tensions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of whether the president could visit the United Kingdom. We have asked President Thein Sein to visit the UK and we hope that it will be soon. That could be an opportunity again to raise these matters. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the visit by General Richards. I can tell the noble Lord that the UK now has a non-resident defence attaché who was appointed in February this year. A resident defence attaché will be in place, we hope, by November this year if it is agreed by the Burmese Government. That again could help with that relationship building.
	My noble friend Lady Jenkin asked about PSVI. Over the summer the British embassy in Rangoon will be scoping options for increasing UK engagement and embedding PSVI approaches to tackle sexual violence in Burma.
	My noble friend Lady Berridge specifically spoke of freedom of religion and belief. She asked a number of questions about which I will write to her in detail. To address the issue of radicalisation, we are concerned, both in relation to issues of radicalisation of the Burmese Muslim community, where the narrative has been fed in that they are a group that has been left to suffer in this way while other people stand by, and concerns among British Muslims and how the issue of the Rohingyas could be used as a recruiting sergeant by radicals and extremists in this country. It is something we are acutely aware of and in discussions with the Home Office about.
	In conclusion, after almost half a century of repression, the past two years have seen Burma make rapid progress towards the goal of a freer and more democratic nation but there is still much more to do. In order to achieve greater democracy Burma must deal with the ethnic conflicts it faces and tackle discrimination against its minority groups. We will continue to engage with the Burmese Government to shape the process of this reform and we want the UK to contribute with meaningful and targeted assistance. Above all, we will ensure that human rights, preventing further violence and ethnic reconciliation remain high on the agenda and, to respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we will not stop looking for, speaking of, or supporting those who are still left in the dark.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed.
	Clause 6 : Supervision of certain young offenders after detention and training order
	Amendment 19 not moved.
	Clause 6 agreed.
	Amendment 20
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	20: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
	“Probation service reform: Parliamentary approval
	No alteration or reform may be made to the structure of the probation service unless the proposals have been laid before Parliament, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, we now come to the black hole in this legislation. Astonishingly, given the scale of the changes proposed for a major national public service, the Bill does not deal with the proposed restructuring of probation. It is quite remarkable that this should be the case.
	I have complained from time to time about the Government’s habit of engaging in pre-legislative implementation. What they are doing to probation is, in fact, worse: they appear to be about to implement their proposals without any legislation at all. What we see in the Bill is a series of consequences of their proposals rather than a proposal. This is in connection with a service which has met and exceeded all its targets, which won the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence for its achievements over many year and which has very high ratings from those with whom it has to deal: 98% of victims approve of the work of the probation service in the feedback that they have supplied and 82% of supervisions were completed satisfactorily. The record on the timeliness of reports to courts was as high as 99%. Only just under 50%—49%—of what is by any standards a difficult client group were placed in employment after serving their probation order.
	Yet the Government now propose a massive change which will effectively exclude around half the work of the probation service from its future deployment. Some 70,000 cases will be effectively privatised. The probation service will be unable, in its present form, to bid to carry out the work which the Government have determined will be subjected to competitive tendering.
	The service has done well in reducing reoffending. The Secretary of State has drawn attention to the reoffending rates. He has noted that, for those serving sentences of less than 12 months, reoffending rates have been rising. We have heard today about the scale of the problem of that group. Of course, that is a group for which the probation service has no responsibility. Where it has responsibility, for those with longer sentences, it has done extremely well in reducing reoffending. The Government propose effectively first to nationalise and then virtually to privatise most of the probation service. They will centralise control. Probation trusts will disappear. There will be 21 areas in which the work will now be carried out by tendering. This will mean that much of the work currently carried out by the probation service, and all the work on short-sentence offenders which has not been carried out by the probation service but which the Bill seeks to address—I repeat that we welcome that—will now be carried out on a contractual basis.
	There are many concerns about that. Certainly, one of the effects is likely to be a reduction in the degree to which justice is local and greater difficulties for voluntary
	organisations wanting to be involved in the work. There would effectively be a binary system of risk, with categories of low and medium risk to be dealt with by organisations other than the probation service, but with the probation service being responsible for high-risk cases. Of course, this appears to ignore the fact that there is movement between the categories. Around 25% of offenders will change from one category to another, many of them becoming higher-risk.
	The proposals will clearly lead to confusion. There is a risk, to which I shall return in greater detail when we discuss an amendment specifically dealing with the issue of risk, of the public lacking the protection that a properly administered probation service can afford in the 15,000 or so cases a year that move into the higher risk category. As we shall explore later, it is very difficult to see how those cases will be effectively managed.
	We need a proper legislative framework for this exercise of transferring responsibility into the private sector. The Government display, as usual, a touching faith in the competence of the private sector but their record in this area of justice is not very convincing. There have been the huge profits made in relation to an inefficient and inadequate system of tagging, with many failures of the system and a great cost to the public purse. The Minister will no doubt say that that has been changed, that there will be new equipment, and so on. Be that as it may, the original providers certainly did very well for themselves but not very well in relation to the purposes for which they were contracted. Just yesterday we heard the appalling news about the young offender institution run by Serco, one of those massive organisations that purport to be able to do everything anywhere. It was a terrible report on the mistreatment of offenders in a young offender institution.
	The unwavering determination of the Government to move from public provision to private provision potentially poses a risk to the interests of the community in matters of safety. We need a proper legislative framework if there is to be any change in the probation service. We need reassurances about a whole range of issues and we need parliamentary approval for a scheme which may bring changes to the probation service, a service that is highly successful.
	The purpose of Amendment 20 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and myself is to seek to ensure that any change in the probation service will take place only after the full details have been discussed and approved by Parliament, rather than by executive order or, as it may be, by statutory instrument. This is so important that it deserves to be dealt with by primary legislation. That would certainly be my preference. At the moment we do not have the details and I do not think that the Government have worked them out. They are rushing to implement this programme. Mr Grayling wants things in place in time for the general election. This is too important an issue to be rushed in this way, especially when they are doing so behind the curtain.
	We have seen many changes to major public services under the present Government. The health service is in turmoil, despite all the warnings and a very long legislative process. There is a grave risk that we shall
	see something similar in terms of the impact on the service if the Government press ahead with untested, undebated and unapproved legislation to change what has been a very successful service. I hope that the Government will think again about this. I hope they will see the force of having their proposals properly scrutinised, debated and approved, if that is what Parliament wishes. At the moment, it does not look as though Parliament will have that opportunity, and that simply is not good enough. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I need the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the correct pronunciation of the word “chutzpah”.

Lord Beecham: It is glottal—chutzpah.

Lord McNally: Glottal or not, that is an extraordinary piece of chutzpah. He knows full well that the powers that we are taking to reorganise the probation service were embedded in his Government’s 2007 Act. It is interesting to recall that during the passage of that Bill through the House of Lords, the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of orders creating, abolishing or amending probation trusts was highly controversial. Originally the Bill did not include any parliamentary scrutiny but the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee identified it as an issue for further investigation. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns tabled an amendment successfully introducing the affirmative resolution procedure to this clause in the Lords. The then Government overturned the amendment during ping-pong by tabling their own concessionary amendment providing for the negative resolution procedure on the basis that that would provide sufficient scrutiny without unduly taking up parliamentary time.
	That is the background. Nothing was done behind the curtain or anywhere else. No one has ever heard me, from this Dispatch Box or anywhere else, attack the record of the probation service. The probation service does an excellent job, and I hope it has a very clear future ahead of it a national role. However, we have to ask whether these things could be done better and more efficiently. As well as the successes of the probation service, we have had as a background to this debate the very disturbing levels of reoffending. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham; the private sector will be very much on trial during this period. We in government who have been preparing the contracts and guidelines for this new partnership will have to work very hard to make sure that they are watertight in terms of delivering value for the taxpayer.
	However, as I said earlier in this debate, I have never hidden the nature of the deal that was on the table to enable us to achieve the reforms—the rehabilitation revolution— that we want, which we said we wanted from the very first days we came into government. The Rehabilitation Revolution was the first Green Paper we published. It was abundantly clear that we could not move forward on this front unless we found the elbow room, in a budget that was already under the cosh, by looking for savings and bringing in the expertise and experience of both the private and voluntary
	sectors. We have made it very clear that whichever groups, confederations or partnerships win this work, anybody with any idea of winning it will have to demonstrate good working relationships and partnerships with the voluntary and community sectors. We have invested some £500,000 in grants to support the voluntary sector organisations, enabling them to participate actively in the rehabilitation reforms.
	That is the background. Amendment 20 would require that any reorganisation of the structure of the probation service would have to be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As noble Lords will know, on 9 May the Government published their strategy for reforming the service to deliver offenders in the community. As part of that strategy we will create the new public sector National Probation Service. I have said before that I very much hope that the probation service will grasp the opportunity to build, at national level, an influential and respected organisation that will have massive responsibilities within this new structure and whose fundamental role will be to protect the public from the most dangerous offenders in our communities. Alongside this will be open delivery of services for offenders in the community by a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers.
	The Government’s strategy for reform sets out concrete plans to extend and enhance rehabilitation in the community. The Bill corrects what is probably the biggest gap in the current system—that those with the highest rates of reoffending currently get no help with rehabilitation. The creation of the National Probation Service is crucial to delivering this extended provision. Alongside the use of competition and the introduction of voluntary and private sector providers, the creation of a national service will allow us to deliver the retained public sector functions in an effective, affordable manner, deriving efficiencies from the economies of scale and streamlined management structures. Without those efficiencies, we would not be able to take forward our new approach, or to extend rehabilitation to short-sentence offenders.
	I remind noble Lords that the issue of parliamentary scrutiny for the establishment, amendment and dissolution of probation trusts was thoroughly debated in both Houses during the passage of the Offender Management Act 2007. At that stage, the then Labour Government were content that the negative resolution procedure provided an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for any changes. Bearing that in mind, and the consultation that we have already undertaken on in this issue, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, we are in Committee and it is 9 pm, so I certainly will not press an amendment on this occasion. However, I must say that I am not persuaded by the arguments, such as they were, put forward by the noble Lord. At a fairly early stage in his reply he spoke of the savings that would be generated by the experience of the private sector. However, the private sector does not have experience of running probation. Serco, Group 4 and all these huge outfits which purport to be able to run all kinds of things, from the Olympic Games to prisons and many other services besides, do not have experience of running probation.
	It is far from clear from the impact analysis, about which we heard earlier, what the financial implications will be. The noble Lord says that there will be a good relationship with the voluntary sector. That was part of the message that the Secretary of State used to sell the Work Programme in his previous job. So successful was that scheme that some 3.5% of people on unemployment benefit have actually been found a job. The voluntary sector, which was at first quite enthusiastic about the prospects, found itself effectively treated as bid candy and largely excluded from any of the major programmes that were advanced. It is rightly fearful that that will be the case if the Government’s proposals are implemented.
	The noble Lord says that there is a need for a National Probation Service. That is questionable. I certainly was not party to the discussions of the legislation to which the noble Lord referred, but it is quite conceivable that changes to the probation service as envisaged, to be approved by the negative procedure, related to changes in the structure of 35 probation trusts. What is being proposed here is something much more radical. It is effectively the abolition of a probation service—certainly the abolition of all the probation trusts—and a centralisation that will be crucial to ensure that the Government’s intentions in this Bill are carried out.
	Of course, however, the probation service, national or otherwise, is not going to be involved in the short-sentence provisions. The probation service will be excluded from providing for medium and low-risk offenders. As I have said, the estimate is that 70,000 cases a year will be run by the new private providers. There is no question, unless the Government accept a later amendment of mine—I am not very optimistic about that—which will allow the probation service to tender for such work. The Government are so keen on competition that they will not allow the probation service to tender for that work at all. Therefore, I cannot see the argument that the noble Lord is trying to make as being at all plausible.
	In my view, we are seeing an ideological determination to limit the role of a major public service. In so far as there is a national service, I do not think that that is conducive to what is needed on the ground, which is, as we have heard and as the noble Lord accepted when discussing an earlier amendment, the need for close working relationships between all the organisations involved in the rehabilitation programme at local level. I cannot see how that can be driven by a national body without any local organisational manifestations. I have to say that it is arguable that 35 trusts is too few anyway, but it is certainly better than none at all. It is certainly better, whatever contracting system is being proposed, than the 21 areas to which the Government will be reducing the tendering process.
	This is a deeply flawed proposal and, whatever happened in the past, it ought now to be the subject of proper parliamentary consideration, if not in primary legislation—as was the opportunity with this Bill—then certainly by the affirmative procedure. If the noble Lord is unrelenting, as he appears to be or as he is compelled to be, then on Report we will have to take this issue further and at that stage seek to test the
	opinion of the House. However, as I indicated at the outset, tonight is clearly not the occasion to do so and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 20 withdrawn.
	Amendment 21
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	21: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
	“Proposed reform of probation services
	(1) Subject to subsection (2), before instituting a system of payment by results for the provision of services to supervise offenders, the Secretary of State shall prescribe by statutory instrument a scheme for such a system, which shall be laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	(2) Before such system may come into existence, the Secretary of State shall undertake a pilot scheme lasting three years in duration, which shall be independently evaluated, with the evaluation report laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	(3) Any payment by results pilot shall be based upon existing probation trust areas.”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, another aspect of the Government’s proposals is the development of payment-by-results programmes. I will begin by quoting the report of the Justice Select Committee in August 2012. The committee said, of contracting out on a payment-by-results basis, that,
	“we are not convinced that the Department has the necessary commissioning and contracting capability to achieve its objective. Currently its commissioning processes are often poorly designed, the stages involved do not whittle down contenders appropriately and bidders do not receive sufficient feedback at the end of the process. Furthermore, the potential benefits of payment by results programmes may not be realised because of structural problems in the Department and the National Offender Management Service”.
	That was as recently as August last year. Will the Minister say to what extent these matters have been considered by the department, to what extent the situation has now improved and in what respects it has improved? It was a fairly damning indictment by the Justice Select Committee.
	There was some discussion of this issue at Second Reading, and many questions were asked. The Minister—I think it was the noble Lord but it may have been his colleague—said then that discussions were taking place with potential providers. It would be interesting to know at what stage those discussions now are. What is the basis on which a payment-by-results scheme will be made? We have heard various suggestions that there will be a flat fee, which will be topped up by some kind of bonus. However, that is likely to be modest in relation to the total cost of the service. If it is not modest, will contractors take the risk? Who knows on what basis this will happen? There is very little about this—of course—in the infamous impact assessment. Will the noble Lord indicate what percentage of the total cost the Government consider will be paid by way of bonuses?
	There are more questions to be asked. Will the scheme be the same for all offenders? We heard yesterday—I think for the first time—about the concept of cohorts, to which reference has already been made. The idea is to not look at individual cases but to take a
	whole group and study the reoffending rates—or rather, as we heard earlier by way of clarification, the reconviction rates. However, we do not know for what period that will apply. Will results be judged on a year’s basis, or will any offences taking place over a period of, say, two or three years—which one might have thought would be a more reasonable approach—be taken into account? If so, how will they be taken into account? It will not do for the Government to say that they do not yet know because they have not reached a conclusion with the contractors. They ought to know the basis on which they are advancing the new policy, and they ought to be able to tell your Lordships’ House—and, indeed, the world at large—about what they are doing.
	Serious criticisms of this process have come from a variety of sources. The director general for public services at the Treasury said:
	“We have now got a situation at the Ministry of Justice where Chris Grayling … is going to take a payment by results approach to almost the whole of probation. But some of us who have been around a long time get very nervous about panaceas … It is quite hard to get a firm handle on the numbers”.
	I suspect that she is not a paid-up member of the Labour Party, or even of the National Association of Probation Officers.
	The National Audit Office commented on the aim of getting smaller organisations involved—which is, as ever, one of the more attractive features that the Government wish to promote, although it turns out that they are doing so more in theory than in substance. The National Audit Office said:
	“It is likely to require significant efforts by the Ministry for it to achieve its aim of creating a diverse and sustainable market, at least in terms of prime providers”.
	At the risk of cherry picking, it said,
	“the use of a binary measure could encourage providers to concentrate their efforts on the offenders least likely to offend and prevent them from working with the most prolific offenders”.
	It is not clear how the cohorts are going to be made up. The noble Lord will no doubt say the matter will be resolved. Can he give any indication of how the cohorts are to be composed?
	It goes on:
	“The measure of success—whether someone is reconvicted within a year or not—is crude”.
	It is worse than that. It is not whether someone is convicted, it is whether a proportion of the cohort is convicted.
	“Offenders usually desist from crime only after many twists and turns. Firms could have an incentive to cream off the easiest cases and keep offending quiet”.
	Actually, that was not the National Audit Office, I beg its pardon. That was the Economist—again, not a particularly left-wing publication. The Economist carries on:
	“Big companies and charities find it much easier to risk non-payment than smaller ones, yet small, local groups are often the ones with the knowledge and networks”.
	That is precisely my point about locality which will almost certainly be sacrificed in the course of this reckless proposal, if it goes further.
	Then there is the question about who is to be dealt with under the 12-month short sentence category. I asked this question at Second Reading and we do not
	have a reply. Is every motorist, non-violent offender or person committing a minor offence who goes in for less than 12 months to be offered supervision? The implication yesterday at the meeting with the Secretary of State is yes, but the contractor will decide what sort of supervision to apply. There is bound to be a cost to that. They are going to price that in. What is the point? There ought to be some clarification about who is likely to fall into this category.
	Not the least worrying feature is the unanswered question which I asked in the Queen’s Speech debate and again at Second Reading. Why did the Government stop the pilot schemes in Staffordshire, the West Midlands and Wales, and why have they refused a freedom of information request to disclose the evaluation of those schemes? We really are entitled to an answer to that. If the Minister cannot supply it tonight—I am not blaming him personally—I expect a reply in writing from him once he has taken whatever advice he needs about this. This is pretty fundamental. Why is Parliament so far being denied the reasons for that decision and the evaluation of that pilot which took place?
	There is another organisation—DrugScope—which has commented in an interesting way about the proposal. It is not completely opposed to the notion. However it recommends what it describes as a cautious and gradual transition. It talks about the need to accumulate evidence and for stocktaking in the light of experience. It suggests that only 10% to 20% of the workload should be subjected to payment by results in the first phase. It is taking a less oppositional view than mine and that of my colleagues on this matter. Are the Government disposed to listen to that point of view? If not, why not? These people are not as opposed to it as some of us necessarily find ourselves. Incidentally, this is an organisation which has been mounting pilots of its own in a different area of policy, in drug and alcohol recovery. It started pilots in 2012. The project is being monitored and evaluated by Manchester University in a three-year study. DrugScope’s recommendation is reflected, in part, in my amendment, which refers to a three-year period. Incidentally, I did not know when I tabled the amendment that this other experiment, as it were, was being piloted. It was fortuitous that I proposed the same period as that endorsed by DrugScope, but it seemed to me a reasonable one.
	If the Government wish to proceed on these lines, why will they not follow what they are doing—or helping to be done—in the not unrelated field, as it turns out, of drug and alcohol recovery? Why do they not follow that example, pilot it properly and then proceed if the evidence supports following that approach? It is troubling that so little has been disclosed about what is in the Government’s mind in tackling this issue—if anything is in their mind—and how their policy might impact on a crucial service. I hope that the amendment’s aim of piloting proposals properly before rolling them out will, on reflection, commend itself to the Government. It is a much better way to approach this problem. The Government clearly wish to pursue the concept of payment by results, about which many of us have doubts. However, we might be convinced by the evidence of properly evaluated pilots. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, bandied statistics around from authoritative organisations, I should add that the National Audit Office estimated that reoffending by ex-prisoners cost the economy between £9.5 billion and £13 billion in 2007-08, and I doubt that the figure has gone down since then.
	It is all very well to talk about pilots and taking the time to conduct them. However, as I said, we are dealing with a section of reoffending which the previous Government thought they would deal with, tried to do so and then backed off. A lot of what we are dealing with here is a long-standing problem that is still costing the economy a great deal of money. Therefore, I think we are entitled to look at what works best in the present system and then bring forward positive ideas to tackle this very difficult problem.
	As I approached my third year in my present office, I began to get slightly embarrassed about pilot schemes because all we seemed to do was go round and round in circles conducting pilots. Pilot schemes can be valuable but I suspect that we abandoned certain pilots because there was nothing significant to be gained from continuing with them, and we already had the feedback from the pilots started by the previous Government in Doncaster and Peterborough. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is saying about our following a high-risk policy. It is certainly a radical policy and delivering it will, no doubt, demand significant effort by my department. What we have learnt from the pilot schemes that have taken place, from the experience of payment by results in other parts of Whitehall and from the existing involvement of the voluntary sector in rehabilitation gives us confidence that if we apply ourselves, taking some of the warnings that he has rightly made, our solutions to the matters before us will work.
	Our experience with initial payment-by-results pilots has increased our confidence about designing robust contracts that drive the required behaviour and help generate improved value for money. We have drawn lessons from pilots about establishing performance targets that will allow us to measure, with confidence, the impact of providers on reoffending rates; of designing payment mechanisms that reward providers only for achieving genuine success. We have looked at the benefits of co-design with the market; early provision of data, where possible; the importance of engaging with a wide range of voluntary sector providers in building diverse supply chains; the new complexities in managing PBR contracts and how we can best meet them within the department.
	We have not been static on this: we are working on the kind of contracts. The consultation response set out our phased approach to implementation over the summer. We can complete the final details of our design and test robustly some of the details of our plan. The Secretary of State has committed to transparency in this process and we are publishing information on our website as soon as it is ready. We recently published information on our proposed payment mechanisms for the market to consider.
	It is all right. I must not cause tensions between departments but when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quoted somebody from the Treasury saying that he did
	not think the Ministry of Justice had a handle on the numbers, the terms “kettle” and “black” came to mind. I had better not go further down that road but before that Bench starts nodding too much about having a grasp of the numbers I would remind them of recent history. I am, nevertheless, pretty confident. I see the teams at work who are going to deal with this in a very businesslike way.
	I do not resile from what I am saying. We are doing something extremely exciting, challenging and radical which is opening up the real opportunity—which escaped the Opposition during 13 years in Government—of dealing with this particularly difficult, complex area of reoffending. I will therefore resist Amendment 21 which would require the details of any system of payment by results to be laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses before being implemented. It would also require the piloting of payment by results for a three-year period, subject to independent evaluation and based on existing probation trust areas.
	As noble Lords will, no doubt, be aware, we are currently piloting a number of different approaches to payment by results across government and have gained valuable learning data. The lessons we have drawn from implementing our pilots and from the experience of other departments give us confidence that we can design and commission robust contracts that drive the right behaviours and generate value for money. It is, of course, extremely easy to get quotes from various organisations about this but we are moving this forward. The Government have consulted carefully on the principle behind our intended payment mechanisms. In the recent response to our consultation, we explained how we had taken on board comments that the payment mechanism must incentivise providers to work with all offenders, not cherry pick them, including the most prolific, and how we had developed the payment mechanisms accordingly. We have now published a draft payment mechanism for discussion and will continue to engage closely with potential providers to make sure that we get this right.
	As I have explained, given the current financial constraints and the importance of delivering effective rehabilitation services to all those who need them, maintaining the current trust structure and piloting payment by results within the existing area are not options open to us. In the light of these arguments, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, of course I will withdraw the amendment at this stage but it is certainly a matter to which we will wish to return on Report. The Government have consulted widely but have not consulted Parliament. If it were not for the amendment, there would be no debate during our consideration of the Bill on the question of payment by results; the provisions would simply be implemented. I do not even know whether that would be done by regulation or executive order. I do not know what the current framework is but, whatever it is, it would not be the subject of debate in this Chamber before decisions were made. Again there has been no consultation on a major change.
	The Minister refers to there being experience of payment by results in other areas, but this is a unique area. To begin with, it relates ultimately in its potential impact to public safety, and we will shortly discuss issues of risk. People’s lives and livelihood are at risk in this area and that makes this a different case from less dramatic eventualities, whatever the normal process of payment by results might mean. The Government no doubt piloted the Work Programme; that experience has been pretty much a disaster. What have the Government learnt from that in terms of payment by results, whether on the supply side, which turned out to be pretty exclusive when it came to voluntary third-sector organisation, or in terms of the outcomes? It would be interesting to know what areas the Government have tested and with what results. I could table a Parliamentary Question but perhaps the noble Lord can give an undertaking that either he or whatever part of Government is responsible—perhaps the Cabinet Office—will write instead and explain more fully the basis on which the comparisons have been made. That would be an interesting exercise.
	Fundamentally, we are in territory where it seems that decisions have been taken pretty much on the hoof. Although I do not blame the noble Lord, we still have not received an explanation for the withdrawal of the two pilots in this area—the ones that we know took place. We are not allowed to know why they were stopped or what the evaluation was. I repeat now for the third time—that makes four questions in all—why were the pilots stopped, why have the Government refused the FOI request for the evaluation and will they now release it? If they are not prepared to do so, they must have something to hide or something which at least they wish to ignore. That is not a satisfactory basis for a change of the magnitude envisaged without discussion, other than by virtue of the amendment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 21 withdrawn.
	Amendment 22
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	22: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
	“Provision of probation services
	In any scheme (including pilots) for the supervision of offenders under sections 2 to 6, probation trusts and local authorities shall not be precluded from tendering for contracts.”

Lord Beecham: Well, my Lords, I return to the dance floor to gavotte once again with the Minister. The issue of risk is serious because it illustrates the potential dangers of this binary system of provision, to which I referred earlier. The definition of the categories of risk is somewhat controversial, to put it mildly, but we leave that aside for the moment. The probation service will not be responsible for low and medium-risk offenders, as defined, and is not even allowed to tender for these offenders. Yet high-risk offenders will be consigned exclusively to the probation service.
	As I indicated earlier, there is a movement between categories of some 25%, suggesting that something like 15,000 people were moved from the medium to the high-risk category. How will that be dealt with under
	the contracts? At what stage will the contractor who was looking after offenders on the basis that they were medium and low risk be required to notify a change of risk? Will they indeed be required to do so? Will they be able to make that assessment? Will they be required to advise the probation service about it? These seem to me to be important questions.
	The National Association of Probation Officers has produced some very interesting examples of people who were not regarded as high risk for the purpose of their current treatment. In recent documentation, NAPO actually gives 52 examples of so-called medium-risk cases. These include an offender previously convicted of Section 20 wounding, of a recent assault, who was regarded as medium risk. Another was convicted of wounding and had previous convictions for the possession of cocaine. Another was convicted of manslaughter and also had a previous conviction for manslaughter, but he was regarded as only medium risk. A current offender convicted of grievous bodily harm, with previous convictions for criminal damage and possession of a knife, was also regarded as medium risk. There was an offender with a Section 20 wounding conviction who had previously been involved in a Section 18 wounding, a knife possession, burglary and criminal damage; again, it was a medium-risk case.
	One might ask what kind of assessment this is. Why are these people not regarded as cases which should properly be dealt with by the probation service? The Government acknowledge that the probation service has the qualifications and skills to deal with these offenders. Why is it that under the new arrangement these so-called medium-risk offenders, with all their past convictions, will be beyond the reach of the probation service? That is no good for them, and potentially dangerous for the rest of us. There are clearly very real risks in this course. My next quote is not from a Treasury civil servant and not from the National Audit Office, which the Minister affects to discount. It is from the Chief Inspector of Probation’s submission to the consultation document. She states:
	“The interface between the dynamic management of risk of harm and PbR model, with its focus on reducing reoffending, in our view creates an inherent tension. We do not believe that this tension can be successfully managed within the framework proposed. Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector providers will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public”.
	Of course, one might say that she has an interest because she is the Chief Inspector of Probation; but she is an inspector, not the probation service as such. It is even noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, who I think is a member of the Conservative Party, has said that:
	“I feel the risks are very high here. Probation do a very, very good job and I am concerned about the future”.
	I suspect that many noble Lords—there are not too many of us in the Chamber—will share those concerns. We are talking about serious risks and a system which, on the face of it, seems unlikely to be able to cope properly with them. That is something which this amendment seeks to address. Although I will not press it to a vote tonight, it is certainly something to which we will want to return on Report. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am not sure how this has come about—I have been advised not to gloat because it might be our fault rather than that of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—but the risk amendment is Amendment 23; he has just moved Amendment 22. To save him having to speak to Amendment 22 later, it may help if I say that we understand the need to bring a wide range of providers in. We are helping a number of staff within probation trusts who have already expressed an interest in being part of a mutual. On 20 May, the Government announced a package of measures to support the voluntary sector and public service mutuals, in particular through the Cabinet Office mutual support programme, which is providing intensive one-to-one support to prepare the first cohort of seven fledging probation mutuals for the competition. Although we do not believe that a probation trust should itself be able to compete, we will be bringing forward this solution—of mutuals—and of course we can explore that later.
	I turn to Amendment 23, to which the noble Lord has just spoken. The amendment will require the definition of risk of harm to be prescribed by statutory instrument and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. While I do not agree that there is a need to prescribe the definition of risk of harm by statutory instrument, I welcome the opportunity to explain how risk of harm is assessed and to reassure noble Lords that the assessment of risk is not simply a tick-box exercise.
	The Offender Assessment System provides a structure for National Offender Management Service staff to assess an offender’s static and dynamic risk factors and risk of serious harm. It is a nationally recognised and understood tool that is supported by national guidance for probation and prison staff. The OASys combines actuarial factors, such as age at first conviction and gender, and dynamic factors such as substance misuse or anti-social attitudes, as well as clinical judgment. Following a structured assessment process, offenders are allocated to a risk of serious harm category that ranges from high to medium to low. A range of potential future harms are considered, including harm to self, to staff, to known victims and to members of the public. Within the current assessment process, there are already agreed definitions for what constitutes high to low risk of serious harm. “Serious harm” is defined as an event which is life threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible. The risk of serious harm is the likelihood of this event happening.
	It should be recognised that the risk of serious harm that an offender poses is dynamic and should be kept under regular review. There are numerous behavioural changes that could indicate an increase in the level of risk of serious harm. It would be difficult to enshrine that range of behavioural change in law which could apply meaningfully to individual cases. The current assessment process enables a practitioner to use all the available information to assess whether an offender is at risk of causing serious harm and give differential weight to the information as it relates to that individual. Under the rehabilitation programme, the National Probation Service will decide on allocation, in each case using a set of clear rules. They will retain management of every offender who poses a high risk of serious harm
	and every young offender who falls under multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA. This includes offenders who are convicted of serious sexual and violent offences. We are consistently updating and improving the validity of the tools that are used to assess an offender’s likelihood of offending and risk of serious harm.
	As part of the TR programme we have commissioned the development of an evidence-based tool that will better predict serious harmful reoffending. The tool will predict the probability that the offender will commit a serious offence within the next 12 or 24 months, thus improving the consistency of practice and ensuring that those who are likely to commit the most serious harmful reoffences are retained within the public sector probation service.
	The initial assessment of risk will be carried out by the public sector probation service. The provider will have a contractual obligation to refer those cases to the public sector, where there has been a significant change in circumstances. They will then check with the public sector to ensure whether it will be necessary to put additional measures into practice.
	We should be very careful in this campaign not to set hares running about the danger to the public. The quotations that the noble Lord gives are under the present system. We are aware that low-risk offenders can do serious harm, just as high-risk offenders may never offend again. We are dealing with human beings. But I hope the remarks that I have made and the depth to which we have gone in terms of consultation and seeking advice will demonstrate that this is something that is very firmly on the radar. In getting that relationship between the public sector probation service, with its undoubted experience and expertise and effective working with medium and low-risk offenders, we believe we can put proper machinery in place. It is a legitimate issue to raise, but it is not in anybody’s interest to start raising public concerns about public safety when, in fact, it is paramount in our mind in setting out the framework within which we intend to operate. I hope in the light of that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, it is just as well that I am not being paid by results. I apologise for skipping, as it were, Amendment 22. I heard what the Minister said, but the reality is that the probation service will not be allowed to tender for the short-term prisoner contracts. Whether there are probation trusts or not, that is a mistake. If we are going to have a mixed economy, let it be a mixed economy, and let at least the probation service be allowed to tender. But even if it is not allowed to tender, perhaps the noble Lord would consider whether other agencies—for example, local authorities as they are involved in crime and disorder reduction partnerships—might be allowed to tender. The Minister may be able to respond to that. I do not know.
	In relation to the risk issues, the problem will potentially arise out of the change of risk. Perhaps the Minister will not be able to reply to this immediately, but if a proportion are deemed to have changed their risk
	profile, what impact would that have on the contracts? I know we are talking about cohorts not individuals, but we are talking about potentially 15,000 cases. Even with 35 contract areas, that is several hundred people per contract area. Presumably, it will have some significance. We are not talking about a minuscule proportion of cases. How will that impact on the contractual arrangements? What provision will there be in the contract regarding that particular outcome? Again, this is not something that I necessarily expect the Minister to be able to respond to tonight, but I should be grateful if he would confirm that he will write to me and place the letter in the Library of the House. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 22 withdrawn.
	Amendment 23 not moved.
	Amendment 23A
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	23A: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
	“Requirement on Secretary of State to request probation and supervision providers to report on breaches and handling of services contracts
	(1) The Secretary of State shall require all providers of probation and supervision services to provide information, report numbers of breaches, and to provide a comprehensive assessment of their management of the contract to provide probation services.
	(2) The provider of probation and supervision services shall be required to produce an annual report, which shall be laid before Parliament.
	(3) Where appropriate, the report should include deemed outcomes of supervision orders, including a breakdown of supervision order requirements, and the explanation for breaches and the failure of offenders to comply.”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, this is a very straightforward matter. The amendment simply seeks the collation of information from providers, whether of probation services or otherwise, so that it can be collated in an annual report and received in Parliament. I think that is certainly necessary in the early years, although maybe when the system settles down, in whatever form it ultimately takes, it will be a different matter. However, given the sensitivity around the proposals and, as the Minister himself puts it, the “radical” nature of the proposals—and bearing in mind our shared objective here, which is to reduce reoffending and to afford as much support as we can to people who have offended but need to reintegrate into society—it seems to me that the request that the information should be available to us is a fairly basic one. I hope the Minister can accept the spirit, if not necessarily the precise wording, of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord is always reasonable in his requests, but the implications are less reasonable. The impact of the amendment would be that all providers, regardless of size or place within the supply chain, would be required by law to produce an annual report for Parliament, as it does not distinguish between prime providers and smaller providers within
	the providers’ supply chain. This would provide a disproportionate level of scrutiny on a single aspect of service delivery.
	I assure noble Lords that there will be a defined data set within the providers’ contract. This will detail what performance information providers have to produce and who is responsible for producing it. We envisage that this would include information such as the number of offenders supervised under top-up supervision and breach rates. We will ensure that reporting requirements strike a balance between providing enough information effectively to hold providers to account for their service delivery and minimising the bureaucracy required to collect and report the data. The Government will publish data and statistics relating to probation service delivery in line with our current practices. I hope the noble Lord, in the light of this, will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Beecham: I take the Minister’s point and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I indicated that the wording might possibly be capable of being refined. If we can achieve that one way or the other, that would be satisfactory.
	Amendment 23A withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed.
	Schedule 3 agreed.
	Clause 8 : Extended sentences: length of extension period
	Debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, this is simply a probing debate, to explore the rationale behind Clause 8, in particular the length of the extension period contained in it. The extension period is one year, and I would just like the Minister to elucidate the thinking behind that and why that particular period has been chosen in respect of these matters.

Lord McNally: An extended determinate sentence or EDS is the sentence that is given to dangerous offenders. This is the sentence that replaced the IPP sentence in December 2012 as a result of the changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. An EDS is made up of a custodial term whereby offenders serve at least two-thirds of the sentence, after which the most serious offenders are considered for release by the parole board. After release, offenders are subject to extended-licence supervision. Clause 8 essentially closes a loophole whereby offenders serving an EDS could, although only in wholly exceptional circumstances, spend less than 12 months under supervision on release. Clause 8, by requiring the extension period of licence for these sentences to be at least a year, ensures that in every case offenders released from custody will serve 12 months under supervision. It is highly unlikely that an extended sentence would be imposed that resulted in less than 12 months of
	supervision. For this to happen, the sentence imposed by the court would have to relate to a dangerous offender who had received a surprisingly short custodial period where the court had chosen not to extend the licence period. I should stress that this is extremely unlikely to occur and there is no example of it having happened but we are taking the opportunity of this Bill to ensure that it does not happen in the future.

Lord Beecham: I thank the Minister for his reply.
	Clause 8 agreed.
	Clause 9 agreed.
	Clause 10 : Drug testing
	Amendment 24
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	24: Clause 10, page 9, line 43, at end insert—
	“(4A) After section 76(5) (subordinate legislation) insert—
	“(5A) An order making any provision by virtue of section 63 or 70 regarding Class B drugs may only be made if the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.””

Lord Beecham: This is a fairly simple amendment. It requires the Government to seek approval for changes to the list of class B drugs for the purposes of the Bill as set out under the heading,
	“Drugs and offenders released during custodial sentence”.
	If it is thought sufficiently significant for class B drugs to be involved and for the list to be changed, then, following the effective precedent of the Bill in dealing with drugs issues, it seems to me that the Government should proceed by way of an order to be debated here. It is presumably not likely to be a frequent occurrence but one would hope that some element of parliamentary oversight would be involved. It may be that the Government intend that anyway but it is not clear from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for summarising his thinking behind this amendment. Clause 10 amends Section 64 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which allows for the Secretary of State to impose a drug testing requirement on offenders aged 18 or over released from prison on licence. The Bill deals with efforts to improve the rehabilitation of offenders and to cut reoffending. Many noble Lords will agree that tackling offending behaviour will often mean tackling an offender’s problem with drugs. Drug use is common among offenders serving custodial sentences. One study reported 64% of people surveyed as having used class A drugs and 74% as having used class B or class C drugs.
	Research has also shown that drug use among prisoners is strongly associated with reconviction on release, with the rate of reconviction more than doubling for prisoners who reported using drugs in the four weeks before custody, compared with prisoners who had never used drugs. And it is not just class A drugs that are
	associated with higher reconviction rates. Offenders who use class B or class C drugs in the four weeks before imprisonment had a reconviction rate of 48%, compared to 30% for those who had never used drugs. What drives this association will vary from offender to offender. For some offenders who are dependent on, say, cannabis or amphetamines, their crime may be linked to the need to fund their drug habit. For others, a propensity to misuse such drugs may expose them to other offenders, risky environments or situations that encourage further reoffending. That can make the process of rehabilitation that much harder. If a connection, direct or indirect, with class B drugs, such as cannabis or amphetamines, is a factor in a significant number of offenders ending up in custody or reoffending, we should do what we can to support offenders to break that connection. Testing for class B drugs is designed to complement those activities.
	Turning to the substance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, Section 70 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 currently provides a power for the Secretary of State to specify via statutory instrument the class A drugs for which an offender released on licence can be tested. This power is subject to the negative resolution procedure. In extending this order-making power to cover class B drugs, we have proposed to keep the negative resolution procedure. It is important that if changes need to be made to the list—for example, if drugs are reclassified or renamed or new drugs appear—that can be done quickly. When initially specifying what class B drugs are within scope, we will, of course, want to look in detail at the evidence for their usage by offenders, their links to reoffending and the availability of testing equipment. I should also point out to noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any issues with this extended power remaining subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am satisfied with it as it clarifies the situation. I rather thought that that would be the case, and I am grateful for his confirmation that that is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 24 withdrawn.
	Clause 10 agreed.
	Amendment 24A
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	24A: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
	“Resettlement prisons
	Before the Secretary of State may institute the proposed system for resettlement prisons, whereby an offender is held in a prison designated to the area to which he will be released, for a period of months before release, such system must be set out in regulations and laid before both Houses of Parliament for debate.”

Lord Beecham: My Lords, this is yet another proposal from the Government that is not included in the Bill and about which there again seems to be no real opportunity for parliamentary oversight. The notion of resettlement prisons is attractive, but there are a number of questions to be asked about it, in particular, about how the system is going to work and the potential costs. There are also questions in relation to women prisoners especially because at the moment there are only 13 prisons for women and there is concern that, since they are not evenly geographically distributed, women may be housed in one place and then moved to what is, effectively, an all-male institution close to their home because there is no women’s prison in that area. There is concern that that would be potentially very difficult. I do not know whether the Government have in mind locations for the resettlement prisons. The figure was about 70, if I remember correctly. Have they given any thought to the position of women in that context, given the relatively small number of women’s prisons dedicated for that purpose?
	By sheer coincidence, the Minister has kindly replied to a Written Question today giving me information about the home locations—he is looking puzzled; I assure him he has—of prisoners held in the north-east. The figures are quite interesting and reinforce some of the concern that I and other noble Lords have or might have about the situation. They show that 59% of young offenders have home addresses outside the north-east region and 39% inside it. So 39% of young offenders are in prison in the area where resettlement would occur but 59% are not. The 2% difference is because the data are not clear. The figures are pretty much reversed in respect of adult prisoners.
	I repeat that 59% of young offenders are from outside the north-east region but are imprisoned there, while only 41% of those in the north-east are from the region. Some 39% of adults, those 21 years and over, come from outside the region, while 61% from inside. These are substantial percentages and the numbers are quite significant—289 young offenders and 2,048 adult offenders are currently in prisons other than in regions to which they would presumably be returning.
	The Minister’s letter, which he may or not have read before he signed it—

Lord McNally: Outrageous—withdraw.

Lord Beecham: I am glad the Minister is prepared to do that. The letter says that the vast majority of prisoners transferred to NOMS North East Region are from adjacent areas. An adjacent area could be the north-west of England. I know that there are significant numbers of prisoners from the north-west of England in prisons in Northumberland. The north-west region runs from Cumbria to Cheshire. To say that is an adjacent region does not take us very far, especially as I suspect most of the offenders will come perhaps from the Merseyside and Manchester conurbations. That would be a reasonable inference. This is a significant number of people to be resettled somewhere nearer home and that is just from one region. How much have the Government thought through the implications of dealing with this? Have the Government given consideration not only to the numbers but the length
	of time during which the resettlement will take place? I raise this point because it has been raised by organisations concerned with women prisoners especially. Has it been looked at from their perspective?
	Incidentally, the letter says, in a point which rather echoes the point about women prisoners and which may account for the figures for young offenders, that there are fewer establishments holding young offenders and they are on average likely to be further from their home area. How realistic is this resettlement process likely to be? It looks to me as though the north-east region is accommodating considerably more than its “fair share” of prisoners. It would be interesting to know how many north-east prisoners are housed elsewhere but I suspect that we have a surplus of accommodation in the north-east and that is not going to assist in the resettlement process. How developed are the Government’s plans? The amendment therefore seeks details and for a scheme to be set out in regulations and laid before both Houses for debate. That would be ideal but at any rate some oversight of the detail and the implications of this scheme are needed, which as I say is welcome in principle but it is difficult to see quite how it is going to work. It may be that the Government are going to take some time over this and that may be necessary, but any indications at this stage would be gratefully received. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for tabling his amendment and for then detailing specific issues in relation to women, young adults and a region with which he is far more familiar than is any other noble Lord currently in the Chamber. Nevertheless, he raises some important issues specifically about women prisoners. Indeed, we heard earlier during the debate about the importance of this issue.
	From a general perspective, the main purpose behind this proposal is to co-ordinate better the delivery of rehabilitation through an offender’s time both in prison and then in the community. Most offenders will spend the final part of their sentence in one of their home area’s designated resettlement prisons, which may involve prisoner movement, but it is also unlikely to result in any significant increase to the number of transfers carried out.
	On the issue of women prisoners and young adult offenders, it is very important that we make the best use of the existing provision for women offenders in the prison estate, both taking account of its size and the geographical spread. We will be consulting with both providers and stakeholders to design the most suitable resettlement arrangements for women offenders, ensuring that, wherever possible, women offenders are held as close to home as possible and with strong links with providers of rehabilitative services. In an earlier debate this evening, we discussed the importance that the Government lay on family issues, particularly in relation to women offenders.
	Young adults have some of the highest reoffending rates, and it is crucial that these reforms are delivered to this group of offenders. Again, we are planning to consult providers to ensure that they design the most suitable model for young adult offenders, taking account of existing provision in the prison estate for this group.
	The amendment itself would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to set up a system for sending prisoners to resettlement prisons prior to their release by requiring this to be done in regulations. Such a restriction would be unprecedented intervention by Parliament in the operational management of prisons. The role is conferred by the Prison Act 1952 on the Secretary of State, although, in practice, the Prison Service is run by the National Offender Management Service, as noble Lords are aware. The power is a broad one for a very good reason: NOMS needs operational flexibility to respond swiftly to fluctuations in prison numbers and to move prisoners around the prison estate for a number of reasons, including access to appropriate interventions as a result of security information or, indeed, for the prisoner’s own protection. Policies for the allocation of prisoners are set out in the Prison Service instructions, which are published; accordingly, such policies are both accessible and transparent. I therefore hope, with the explanation I gave given, that the noble Lord will find it appropriate to withdraw his amendment and agree that operational arrangements are matters more appropriately left to the Secretary of State.

Lord Beecham: I am not sure that I would leave very much to the present Secretary of State, but that is by the way. The question is surely that this is welcome, novel scheme which ought to be at least discussed.
	I cannot see why there should be any inhibition on the part of the Government to laying out their proposals for discussion. It may be that seeking to deal with the matter by regulation may be regarded as a step too far but, at the very least, it should be subject to some parliamentary debate. There are people in your Lordships’ House who can contribute to that kind of debate very effectively, I should have thought. I do not necessarily include myself in that group, but there are people like the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, with a record of involvement. These are the very people who should be contributing to a solution to a problem which the Government rightly identify and want to do something about; there is no difference between us on that. Why be so defensive about it? Why not be open about it, have the discussion and let us try to improve the situation with the contribution that Members, particularly of this House, are in a position to afford?
	I do not see why the Government should stonewall on this issue. However, it is two minutes to 10 pm. The Chief Whip is with us; I tremble before her, as ever, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 24A withdrawn.
	Clause 11 agreed.
	House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.58 pm.